JUDGMENT : Anil Satyavijay Kilor, J. 1. Hearing was conducted through Video conferencing and the learned counsel agreed that the audio and visual quality was proper. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The matter is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 3. This petition has been filed by the unsuccessful Bidder at the stage of opening of technical bid, questioning the legality and correctness of the communication dated 26.05.2020, issued by the Director of Education (Primary), disqualifying the petitioner for further participation in the tender process. 4. The facts leading to the present petition are as follows: On 06.12.2019, the respondent No. 2-the Director of Primary Education, Maharashtra State, invited request for proposal for transportation of rice from FCI godowns to schools and for supply of other food grains, pulses, oil, spices and condiments in schools under Midday Meal Scheme in Amravati District. 5. One of the conditions of the technical bid stipulates that the bidder shall upload the documents mentioned in the form of scanned and zipped files and in Envelop number one i.e. Technical Bid. The relevant document for the purpose of the present petition are the certificates issued by Chartered Accountant, showing supply of food grains and pulses turnover per annum of financial years 2017-18 and 2018-19. 6. As per revised schedule of submission, opening of technical bid etc. the date for submission of complete bid was extended from 12.02.2020 up to 17.02.2020 while the date for opening of technical bid was 24.02.2020. 7. The petitioner submitted its bid on 30.01.2020, as per schedule of submission of bid. 8. On 22.05.2020, the respondent No. 2 on video call to the petitioner, had intimated the deficiencies in the bid, which are as follows: (a) Blacklisting of the petitioner in Jharkhand State. (b) Unique Document Identification Number(UDIN) not being provided with the certificate of the Chartered Accountant. 9. The petitioner on the same day, on 22.05.2020 i.e., before opening of the technical bid, submitted the copy of judgment of the High Court of Jharkhand, whereby blacklisting of the petitioner has been set aside by the High Court and as regards the second deficiency, the petitioner submitted the letter dated 22.05.2020, issued by the Chartered Accountant with the UDIN. 10. 10. The respondent No. 2 on 26.05.2020, issued the impugned communication, informing the petitioner that the petitioner has been held to be disqualified for opening of financial bid on the ground that UDIN was not generated at the time of submission of tender and the UDIN subsequently generated on 22.05.2020, can not be accepted as the same was not generated within 15 days from the date of submission of the bid as prescribed in 'Annexure-6'. 11. The said disqualification of the petitioner is under challenge in the present petition. 12. Heard Shri A.A. Naik, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri S.S. Thombre, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Shri Devendra Chavhan, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 and Shri Ajay Ghare, learned counsel for respondent No. 4. 13. Shri A.A. Naik, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no express requirement of UDIN was stipulated in the tender notice, thus the said requirement is not a part of the tender or the same cannot be treated as an essential condition. 14. He draws attention of this Court to the pleadings made in the petition to the effect that on receiving video call of the respondent No. 2 on 22.05.2020, apprising the deficiencies, the petitioner immediately on the same day submitted the letter of the Chartered Accountant with the UDIN and removed the deficiency. 15. He further submits that though there is a specific mention in the impugned communication dated 26.05.2020, about submission of UDIN on 22.05.2020, the same has not been considered on the ground that it was not submitted within 15 days from the date of submission of the bid. 16. Shri A.A. Naik, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that in absence of any explicit condition in the tender document concerning generation of UDIN, even if it is considered as a condition of the tender the period of 15 days shall be counted from the date of appraisal as regards to submission of UDIN. According to him in that matter the relevant date would be 22.05.2020 on which date such requirement was intimated to the petitioner. 17. Moreover, he submits that the purpose of submission of UDIN is only to verify the genuineness of the certificate and to avoid any bogus certificate, therefore, submission of UDIN before opening of the technical bid by the petitioner, sufficed the aforesaid purpose of generation of UDIN. 17. Moreover, he submits that the purpose of submission of UDIN is only to verify the genuineness of the certificate and to avoid any bogus certificate, therefore, submission of UDIN before opening of the technical bid by the petitioner, sufficed the aforesaid purpose of generation of UDIN. Thus, he submits that action on the part of respondent No. 2 disqualifying the petitioner is arbitrary and not sustainable in the eyes of law. In support of his contentions he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of Tejas construction and infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. Municipal Council, Sendhwa and another, reported in : 2012 (6) SCC 464 . 18. Per contra Shri S.S. Thombre, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, submits that a condition of generation of UDIN was mandatory and in absence of UDIN, the certificates of Chartered Accountant submitted by the petitioner cannot be considered as valid certificate. Thus he supports the disqualification of the petitioner. 19. He further draws attention of this Court to the notification dated 02.08.2019 issued by the Institution of Chartered Accountants of India and submits that for its members it has been made mandatory to generate UDIN for issuance of all certificates. Thus, according to him, non-generation of UDIN by the Chartered Accountant of the petitioner, disqualifies the petitioner for opening of financial bid. 20. He further points out that there are other grounds which make the petitioner ineligible to participate further in the process of tender. He however fairly concede that for the rejection of the bid of the petitioner, except ground relating to UDIN no other grounds are mentioned in the impugned communication dated 26.02.2020. 21. Shri Ajay Ghare, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 echoed the arguments of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and in addition to the same, he submits that the generation of UDIN subsequently after lapse of period of 15 days shows that the petitioner was not careful while submitting the bid and therefore, he needs to suffer for his carelessness. 22. Shri Chavhan, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 adopts the argument of the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4 and prays for dismissal of the petition. 23. To consider the rival contentions of the parties, we have gone through the record and relevant judgments. 24. 22. Shri Chavhan, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 adopts the argument of the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4 and prays for dismissal of the petition. 23. To consider the rival contentions of the parties, we have gone through the record and relevant judgments. 24. In the present matter, the irrefutable facts are that: a) On 30.01.2020, the petitioner submitted the bid in response to request for proposal dated 06.12.2019. b) Subsequently on 22.05.2020 the petitioner received a video call from the respondent No. 2, apprising him two deficiencies which would disqualify the petitioner from participating in financial bid. The said two deficiencies were with reference to blacklisting of the petitioner in Jharkhand and non-generation of UDIN with the certificate of the Chartered Accountant. c) The petitioner immediately, on the same day i.e. on 22.5.2020 supplied the copy of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand, setting aside the blacklisting of the petitioner. And as regards the second deficiency about UDIN, the petitioner submitted the letter of the Chartered Accountant dated 22.05.2020, with the UDIN. d) The technical bid was subsequently opened on 24.05.2020 and vide communication dated 26.05.2020 the petitioner was informed by the respondent No. 2 that the petitioner has been held disqualified for opening of financial bid on the ground that the petitioner did not generate UDIN along with the certificate of the Chartered Accountants at the time of submission of the bid or within 15 days thereafter. 25. Thus, it is pertinent at this juncture to refer to the relevant conditions of the tender as regards, technical bid. The relevant clause for the purpose of this petition are Clause No. 5.2.1 (X) which read thus: "5.2-Technical Bid 5.2.1. Bidders would be pre-evaluated on the submission of the documents and the samples meeting the Specifications prescribed. In pursuance thereof Bidder has to upload following documents in the form of scanned and zipped files and in Envelope number one of the Bid which shall form the Technical Bid for this RFP X. The certificate issued by Chartered Accountant showing supply of food grains and pulses turnover per annum of financial year 2017-18 and 2018-19." 26. There was no explicit mention in Clause No. 5.2.1 (X) about the requirement of generation of UDIN along with the certificate of the Chartered Accountant. There was no explicit mention in Clause No. 5.2.1 (X) about the requirement of generation of UDIN along with the certificate of the Chartered Accountant. Thus, it is clear that there was no such express condition mentioned in the tender document. 27. There is no dispute that the necessary certificate of the Chartered Accountant, fulfilling the conditions of the tender document in relation to technical bid had been submitted by the petitioner in compliance of the aforesaid clause (X). There is also no dispute that it is not the case of the respondent No. 2 that because no such certificate of Chartered Accountant was submitted, the petitioner has been disqualified. However, for the only reason that UDIN was not generated with the certificate of the Chartered Accountant, the petitioner has been disqualified. 28. The Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of Tejas construction (supra), has held thus: "18. In Reliance Airport Developers (P) Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India, this Court held that while judicial review cannot be denied in contractual matters or matters in which the Government exercises its contractual powers, such review is intended to prevent arbitrariness and must be exercised in larger public interest. 21. To the same effect is the decision of this Court in Master Marine Services (P) Ltd. v. Metcalfe & Hodgkinson (P) Ltd. and Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa where this Court laid down the following tests for judicial interference in exercise of power of judicial review of administrative action: (Jagdish Mandal case, SCC p. 531, para 22) "22. … Therefore, a court before interfering in tender or contractual matters in exercise of power of judicial review, should pose to itself the following questions: (i) Whether the process adopted or decision made by the authority is mala fide or intended to favour someone. OR Whether the process adopted or decision made is so arbitrary and irrational that the court can say: 'the decision is such that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could have reached'. (ii) Whether public interest is affected. If the answers are in the negative, there should be no interference under Article 226." 23. In the earlier part of this judgment the challenge to the allotment of the work in question was primarily based on a twofold contention. (ii) Whether public interest is affected. If the answers are in the negative, there should be no interference under Article 226." 23. In the earlier part of this judgment the challenge to the allotment of the work in question was primarily based on a twofold contention. Firstly, it was argued that Respondent 2, successful bidder, had not satisfied the requirement of filing audited balance sheets for the five years preceding the award of the contract. That the said respondent had filed certified copies of the audited balance sheets for the years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010, was not in dispute. What was disputed was that the balance sheet for the year 2010-2011 had not been filed, instead a certificate from the chartered accountant concerned, relating to the period 1-4-2010 to 22-3-2011, had been produced which did not, according to the writ petitioner before us, satisfy the requirement of the NIT. 24. Rejecting that contention the High Court held that since the balance sheet for the year 2010-2011 had not been audited the production of relevant record of the company was a substantial compliance with the stipulation contained in the NIT. The High Court observed: "As regards the audited balance sheet, it has not been disputed that Respondent 2 submitted audited balance sheets for the years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010. Respondent 2 has further submitted certificate issued by its chartered accountant in respect of the period from 1-4-2010 to 22-3-2011. Certificate is at p. 66, which has been issued on the basis of audited books, documents, registers, records, bills and evidences produced before it for verification. Certificate is dated 23-3-2011. It has been pointed out by Shri Vijay Assudani, learned advocate appearing for Respondent 2 that by that time, the Financial Year 2010-2011 was not complete and it was not possible to obtain certified copy of the audited balance sheet. It could not be disputed on behalf of the petitioner that the turnover as shown in the certificate of chartered accountant and other documents for the last five years, was meeting the requirement as per the NIT. Further, it is not the case of the petitioner that the particulars and the figures mentioned in the certificate are incorrect. The petitioner, by virtue of Sections 159 and 163 of the Companies Act, could have obtained certified copy of the balance sheets of Respondent 2 to demonstrate incorrectness, if any. Further, it is not the case of the petitioner that the particulars and the figures mentioned in the certificate are incorrect. The petitioner, by virtue of Sections 159 and 163 of the Companies Act, could have obtained certified copy of the balance sheets of Respondent 2 to demonstrate incorrectness, if any. The petitioner, having not chosen to place any such documents on record, cannot successfully raise any objection, when there is substantial compliance with the NIT in relation to turnover. Audit for the year 2010-2011 was not completed by that time. However, certificate was issued on the basis of the audit books, documents, register, records, bills and evidences produced before the chartered accountant for verification. This amounts to substantial compliance with the requirement with regard to submission of certified copy of balance sheet, more so, the petitioner himself could have obtained copies of audited balance sheet of Respondent 2 and could have demonstrated incorrectness. It is not the case of the petitioner that the said certificate depicts incorrect turnover or net worth. This being so, the process adopted by Respondent 1 cannot be said to be arbitrary or irrational." There is, in our opinion, no legal flaw in the above finding or the line of reasoning adopted by the High Court." 29. In the present matter, the Institute of Chartered Accountant of India vide its notification dated 02.08.2019, made it mandatory for its members to generate UDIN for all kinds of certificates w.e.f. 01.02.2019. The purpose of issuance of such notification has been mentioned in the said notification which reads thus: "No-1-CA(7)/192/2019.-Whereas, to curb the malpractice of false certification/attestation by the unauthorized persons & to eradicate the practice of bogus certificates and to save various regulators, banks, stakeholders etc. from being misled, the Council of the Institute decided to implement an innovative concept to generate Unique Document Identification Number (UDIN) mandatorily for all kinds of the certificates/GST and tax audit reports and other attest function in phased manner, for which members of the ICAI were notified through the various announcements published on the website of ICAI www.icai.org at the relevant times." 30. Thus it is clear and comprehensible that the purpose to generate UDIN is to curb the malpractice of false certification/attestation by the unauthorized person and to eradicate the practice of bogus certificates. Thus it is clear and comprehensible that the purpose to generate UDIN is to curb the malpractice of false certification/attestation by the unauthorized person and to eradicate the practice of bogus certificates. In other words the solitary purpose to generate the UDIN is to aid the concerned person or authority to ascertain the genuineness of the certificate of the Chartered Accountant. 31. In the present matter admittedly, as referred above, there was no expressed condition in the tender document as regards to submission of UDIN. However it has come on the record that the petitioner on 22.05.2020 i.e., immediately on getting the knowledge about the said requirement of generation of UDIN, submitted the letter of the Chartered Accountant with UDIN, subsequent to which the technical bid was opened on 24.05.2020. As such the UDIN with the letter of the Chartered Accountant dated 22.5.2020 was on the record of the respondent No. 2 at time of opening of the Technical Bid of the petitioner. 32. As observed herein above that the solitary purpose to generate the UDIN is to aid the concerned authority to ascertain the genuineness of the certificate of the Chartered Accountant, in the said backdrop and looking to the undisputable facts, one can safely be said that the UDIN submitted by the petitioner on 22.05.2020 before opening of the Technical Bid has substantially satisfied the requirement of generation of UDIN. And once the ascertainment about the authenticity of the certificate of the Chartered Accountant is established on the basis of UDIN, thereafter rejection of tender on the ground that the UDIN was not submitted along with bid or within 15 days from the date of submission of the bid, amounts to rejection on highly technical ground. Hence, according to us the decision making process in the present matter is arbitrary and irrational. 33. As far as the submission made by the respective learned counsels for the respondents as relates to generation of UDIN within 15 days from the date of submission of bid is concerned, in absence of express condition in the tender document about generation of UDIN, period of 15 days cannot be counted from the date of the submission of the technical bid but it has to be counted from the date of intimation of such requirement by the respondent No. 2 to the petitioner. If we consider the period of 15 days from the date of intimation, the petitioner has submitted UDIN immediately on the date on which he received the intimation from respondent No. 2 about the said requirement. Thus, we reject the argument of the respondents that the petitioner failed to submit UDIN within 15 days. 34. Furthermore though in the impugned communication while rejecting the bid of the petitioner, on the ground that UDIN was not generated within 15 days from the date of submission of Bid, a reference has been made of the 'Annexure-6', however the respondents failed to point out any such document forming part of tender document. On the other hand the learned counsel for the petitioner points out that no such document was supplied alongwith the tender document. 35. In the said backdrop, there was no question of the petitioner being ineligible for committing a deliberate default in generating the UDIN. Thus, we reject the submission of the respondents that non-submission of UDIN makes the petitioner ineligible to participate in the further process of tender. 36. The contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents that there are other grounds which make the petitioner ineligible and disqualified for participation in the tender process, cannot be accepted as the solitary ground mentioned in the impugned communication, is non-generation of UDIN, for rejection of tender of the petitioner. 37. It is a settled law that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise, as held by the Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and another vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others, reported in AIR 1978 SC 851 . 38. In view of the observations made herein above, we are of the considered view that the impugned communication dated 26.05.2020, disqualifying the petitioner from participating in the tender process, needs to be set aside as the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 39. Accordingly, the petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b) and thereby the impugned communication dated 26.05.2020 is quashed and set aside and it is held that the petitioner is qualified for opening of the financial bid. 40. 39. Accordingly, the petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b) and thereby the impugned communication dated 26.05.2020 is quashed and set aside and it is held that the petitioner is qualified for opening of the financial bid. 40. Since the work order is not yet issued, we further direct the respondent No. 2 to consider the bid of the petitioner. 41. The petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. 42. This order be communicated to the counsel appearing for the parties, either on the email address or on WhatsApp or by such other mode, as is permissible in law.