JUDGMENT Sanjay Yadav, J. - Petitioner, a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, having suffered rejection of its bid application for lease of group of sand quarry in District Umaria, has filed this writ petition. The rejection of bid application is for non-adherence of essential condition i.e. Net Worth Certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant. 2. Relevant facts briefly are that the respondent/M.P. State Mining Corporation Ltd. issued Notice Inviting Tender (referred as 'NIT') for E-tender of sand quarries situated in District Umaria on 07.10.2019. The initial upset price was fixed at Rs.10,62,50,000/- (Rupees Ten Crores Sixty Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) for the quantity of 850000 Sq. Mts. of sand at the rate of Rs.125/- per cubic meter. The tender bid was to be submitted in two parts, viz., Technical Bid and Financial Bid. The NIT was published on 07.10.2019. It was available for download from 08.10.2019 onwards. The online submission of bids were to be done between 17.10.2019 to 08.11.2019 till 5 p.m. which was later extended by further 15 days to 26.11.2019 till 5 p.m. The Technical Bid was scheduled to be opened on 02.12.2019 and the Financial Bid was re-scheduled to be opened on 07.12.2019. 3. The NIT stipulated various essential conditions to be adhered to by respective bidders. One such condition around which centres the controversy raised in this petition, contained in Clause 5 and 6(v)( )(i) & (ii) of the NIT which stipulates that where the initial upset price is in excess of Rs.10 crores, the applicant along with the technical bid shall furnish a Net Worth Certificate by the Chartered Accountant showing the net worth of applicant for the current financial year i.e. 2018-19 or 2017-18, as the case may be. Such net worth shall be of 'stand-alone' and shall be on the basis of audit account and that for qualifying in the technical bid, the applicant should have a minimum net worth of 50% of the advertised initial upset price. 4. That, Clause 5 and Clause 6(v)( )(i) & (ii) of the NIT which mandate the relevant documents to be uploaded with the E-tender bid application, are reproduced for ready reference : 5. It is further borne out from the NIT dated 05.10.2019 that a pre-bid meeting was held on 15.10.2019 and 16.10.2019 which resolved queries and the doubts raised by the prospective participants. It is further borne out from the NIT dated 05.10.2019 that a pre-bid meeting was held on 15.10.2019 and 16.10.2019 which resolved queries and the doubts raised by the prospective participants. As regard to the Net Worth Certificate, it was reiterated that it must be issued by the Chartered Accountant and a condition precedent i.e. an essential condition. The query and its resolution as regard to furnishing the net worth certificate finds at Serial No.5 and 17 which was made known to respective participants. They are reproduced for ready reference. 6. It is pertinent to note that NIT also contained Clause 27 which stipulated the opportunity for correction in the tender documents before last date of submission. 7. The petitioner uploaded the tender documents on 22.11.2019. Evidently, the petitioner uploaded balance sheet of the Company dated 31.08.2019 instead of Net Worth Certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant. 8. That, on 02.12.2019, the petitioner received an auto generated mail from the e-procurement system informing that its bid has been opened and updated summary by the duly constituted committee which has admitted the bid. The said communication as evident therefrom is titled under subject as regard to Bid Opening for the tender. Thereafter, the petitioner received another auto generated communication dated 05.12.2019 informing the petitioner that during technical evaluation by the duly constituted committee, the petitioner was found disqualified for financial opening since net worth certificate was not submitted by him. 9. Challenging the rejection order, precise submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that in absence of any specific format of the Net Worth Certificate in the NIT, the balance sheet duly authenticated by the Chartered Accountant disclosing the stand-alone net worth of the petitioner cannot be held to be noncompliance of the stipulation contained in Clause 5 of the NIT. Additionally, it is submitted that having admitted the Tender Documents as communicated on 02.12.2019, the official respondents were estopped from disqualifying the petitioner in Technical Evaluation. It is urged that in financial parlance, since balance sheet is also known as a net worth statement, the respondents ought to have held that there was a substantial compliance. The Authorities, it is contended, ought to have given the wider meaning to the expression 'Net Worth Certificate' by including the balance sheet disclosing stand-alone net worth of the petitioner-company. It is urged that in financial parlance, since balance sheet is also known as a net worth statement, the respondents ought to have held that there was a substantial compliance. The Authorities, it is contended, ought to have given the wider meaning to the expression 'Net Worth Certificate' by including the balance sheet disclosing stand-alone net worth of the petitioner-company. It is contended that the decision rejecting the Technical Bid, being perverse, has resulted in huge loss to public revenue in terms of the difference of the amount bid by the petitioner (which was Rs.42 crores) and that of respondent No.3, whose bid was accepted (which is Rs.37 crores). 10. On these contentions, petitioner seeks quashment of the rejection order dated 05.12.2020 and the award in favour of respondent No.3 and a direction to consider the financial bid of the petitioner. 11. The respondent/M.P. State Mining Corporation has vehemently opposed the contention raised by the petitioner and seeks dismissal of the petition. It is urged that the Net Worth Certificate by the Chartered Accountant being the essential condition as per the stipulations in the NIT which was further clarified in the pre-tender meeting, non-adherence thereto led to petitioner's disqualification which cannot be held to be arbitrary. It is urged that the Tender Evaluation Committee, an expert body, since did not consider the balance sheet of the Company to net worth certificate, the same cannot be diluted to have a wider connotation to include the balance sheet to mean 'net worth certificate'. As regard to communication dated 02.12.2020, relying on Paragraph 21 of the Return, it is stated that it is a matter of procedure that when any online bid submitted by any bidder is opened, then an auto-generated mail from the portal is sent to the bidder. The said mail only signifies the fact that bid submitted by the bidder is opened. It is contended that it does not signify that the technical bid of the bidder is declared to be qualified. It is urged that after opening the bid, the same is placed before the Technical Evaluation Committee and it is only the decision of the Technical Evaluation Committee pursuant to which a bidder is declared qualified or disqualified, as the case may be. It is urged that after opening the bid, the same is placed before the Technical Evaluation Committee and it is only the decision of the Technical Evaluation Committee pursuant to which a bidder is declared qualified or disqualified, as the case may be. As regard to contention as to loss to the revenue, it is urged that as the petitioner is not technically qualified, the alleged loss to the revenue will not be germane in the present case. 12. Respondent No.3, who has been awarded the tender, has filed separate return. In addition to what has been submitted on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2, it is urged that in the entire State of Madhya Pradesh, in total 247 participants took part in E-tender and its only the petitioner who did not furnish the net worth certificate, despite knowing that it is an essential requirement of the NIT. It is contended that being an essential condition, there can be no relaxation from filing the net worth certificate by the Chartered Accountant, nor the balance sheet can be construed to be a net worth certificate. It is further contended that in furtherance to award of tender, respondent No.3 had executed the agreement on 02.06.2020. It is, accordingly, submitted that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 13. Considered rival contentions and perused the material placed on record. 14. It is not in dispute that the net worth certificate based on audit account and issued by the Chartered Accountant to be uploaded along with the bid documents is one of the essential conditions. This will be evident not only from the Clause 51/4 but also Clause 6(v) (d)(i) & (ii) of the NIT and the Resolution No.5 and 17. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner did not upload the net worth certificate by the Chartered Accountant, but only uploaded the balance sheet of the Company and despite Clause 27 of the NIT, did not correct the mistake. 15. Trite it is that, in the matter of tender, the terms and conditions thereof has to be understood from the angle of the employer and that such employer will be within his right to ensure the strict compliance thereof. 16. In G.J. Fernandez vs State of Karnataka, (1990) 2 SCC 488 , it is held that " the employer has the right to punctiliously and rigidly enforce the terms of the tender". 16. In G.J. Fernandez vs State of Karnataka, (1990) 2 SCC 488 , it is held that " the employer has the right to punctiliously and rigidly enforce the terms of the tender". Similarly, in Puravankara Projects Ltd. vs Hotel Venus International, (2007) 10 SCC 33 , it is held that " tender terms are contractual and it is the privilege of the Government which invites its tenders and courts do not have jurisdiction to judge as to how the tender terms should be framed. 17. In Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. vs Nagpur Metro Rail Corpn. Ltd., (2016) 16 SCC 818 , it is held : "15. We may add that the owner or the employer of a project, having authored the tender documents, is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements and interpret its documents. The constitutional courts must defer to this understanding and appreciation of the tender documents, unless there is mala fide or perversity in the understanding or appreciation or in the application of the terms of the tender conditions. It is possible that the owner or employer of a project may give an interpretation to the tender documents that is not acceptable to the constitutional courts but that by itself is not a reason for interfering with the interpretation given." 18. Recently, in Silppi Constructions Contractors vs Union of India,2019 SCCOnlineSC 1133, in the context of interpretation of contracts, it is held : "20. .... The authority which floats the contract or tender, and has authored the tender documents is the best judge as to how the documents have to be interpreted. If two interpretations are possible then the interpretation of the author must be accepted. .." 19. In the case at hand, what was essentially required to be uploaded with the tender document was the net worth certificate based on the audit account by the Chartered Accountant and not the Balance Sheet. The petitioner having failed to adhere to said stipulation has to blame himself rather than turn around and seek a judicial indulgence, asking to treat the condition as collateral or relaxable. The interference of the courts will only be when there is arbitrariness, irrationality, bias, malafides or perversity in decision making process. 20. In view whereof, rejection of Technical Bid of the petitioner for non-compliance of essential condition cannot be faulted with. 21. The interference of the courts will only be when there is arbitrariness, irrationality, bias, malafides or perversity in decision making process. 20. In view whereof, rejection of Technical Bid of the petitioner for non-compliance of essential condition cannot be faulted with. 21. Further contention that the bid documents having been admitted vide communication dated 02.12.2019 estoppes the respondents from rejecting the Technical Bid is taken note of and rejected at the outset, because the said communication was only a procedural stage of opening the tender documents before the evaluation of technical bid by the committee of experts. 22. As regard to contention that non-acceptance of bid of Rs.40 crores and acceptance of bid of respondent No.3 which was of Rs.37 crores resulting in apparent loss to the public exchequer, also deserves to be rejected. In Raunaq International Ltd. vs I.V.R. Construction Ltd., (1999) 1 SCC 492 , it is held : "11. ... A mere difference in the prices offered by the two tenderers may or may not be decisive in deciding whether any public interest is involved in intervening in such a commercial transaction. It is important to bear in mind that by court intervention, the proposed project may be considerably delayed thus escalating the cost far more than any saving which the court would ultimately effect in public money by deciding the dispute in favour of one tenderer or the other tenderer. Therefore, unless the court is satisfied that there is a substantial amount of public interest, or the transaction is entered into malafide, the court should not intervene under Article 226 in disputes between two rival tenderers." 23. In view whereof, since we do not perceive any merit in the challenge put-forth by the petitioner to the rejection of his Technical Bid, petition fails and is dismissed. No costs.