JUDGMENT Heard Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. BR Sharma, learned CGSC appearing for the respondents No. 1 & 2 and Mr. L. Shashibhushan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3. [2] The present writ petition had been filed with the prayer of quashing the acceptance letter dated 19.02.2021 in so far as, it relates to the private respondent No. 3 in respect of tender No. Q-Fresh/2021-22/Sch-47 dated 06.11.2020 for supply of Group B ration to HQ IGAR(S) and 15 AR under schedule No. 47 for the financial year 2021-22, tender No. Q-Fresh/2021- 22/Sch-48 dated 06.11.2020 for supply of Group C ration to HQ IGAR(S) and 15 AR under schedule No. 48 for the financial year 2021-22, tender No. QFresh/ 2021-22/Sch-55 dated 06.11.2020 for supply of Group B ration to HQ 9 Sector AR and 16 AR under schedule No. 55 for the financial year 2021-22 and tender No. Q-Fresh/2021-22/Sch-56 dated 06.11.2020 for supply of Group C ration to HQ 9 sector AR & 16 AR under schedule No. 56 for the financial year 2021-22. [3] According to the petitioners, they are registered proprietorship firm registered under the Manipur Trade Articles (Licensing and Control) licensing order/1986 having licence No. 366/2001/TL and licence No. 353/2K/TL respectively. [4] The Director General of Assam Rifles, Shillong Meghalaya, who is the respondent No. 2 herein, issued different notices bearing No. Q-Fresh/2021- 22 dated 06.11.2020 inviting electronic bids (online/e-tender) under 2 (two) bids system, i.e., technical bids and cost bids for supply of Group B ration (Vegetable) under schedule No. 47 and Group C ration (non-vegetable) under schedule No. 48 to HQ IGAR (south) including No. 12 Field Workshop Assam Rifles, S & T Coy of No. 4 MGAR Bn. HQ 15 Assam Rifles including 2 (two) Rifle Coys at Mantripukhari, Assam Rifles Transit Camp at Minuthong and four COBS of 15 (fifteen) Assam Rifles at Yaingangpokpi (YKPI), Chingmeirong, Sawombung, Koirengei and one TOB at Sagolmang during the financial year 2021-22. The tender value in respect of Group B ration under schedule No. 47 is Rs. 1,75,98,000/- (Rs. One crore seventy five lakh ninety eight thousand) only and the tender value in respect of Group C ration under schedule No. 48 is Rs. 3,58,47,000/- (Rs. Three Crore fifty eight lakh forty seven thousand) only. The tender value in respect of Group B ration under schedule No. 47 is Rs. 1,75,98,000/- (Rs. One crore seventy five lakh ninety eight thousand) only and the tender value in respect of Group C ration under schedule No. 48 is Rs. 3,58,47,000/- (Rs. Three Crore fifty eight lakh forty seven thousand) only. [5] The respondent No. 2 also issued different notices bearing No. QFresh/ 2021-22 dated 06.11.2020 inviting electronic bids (online/e-tender) under 2 (two) bids system, i.e., technical bids and cost bids for supply of Group B ration (vegetable) under schedule No. 55 and Group C ration (nonvegetable) under schedule No. 56 to HQ 9 sector Assam Rifles, Bn. HQ 16 Assam Rifles including 2 (two) Rifle Coys and No. 4 Workshop Assam Rifles at Keithelmanbi, 3 (three) COBs at Singjamei, Chanchipur & Lilong during the financial year 2021-22. The tender value in respect of Group B ration under schedule No. 55 is Rs. 92,03,000/- (Rs. Ninety two lakh three thousand) only and the tender value in respect of Group C ration under schedule No. 56 is Rs. 2,13,80,000/- (Rs. Two crore thirteen lakh eighty thousand) only. Altogether 4 (four) firms including the present petitioners and the respondent No. 3 herein submitted their tender bids in respect of supplying Group B and Group C rations under schedule Nos. 47, 48, 55 & 56. [6] The guidelines/procedures for submissions of the bids in respect of the aforesaid NIT were also published and in paragraph 6 of the said guidelines, the documents required to be submitted/ uploaded by the tenderers/ bidders in connection with their technical bids are elaborately given. Under paragraph 6 (d) of the said guidelines, it is provided as under:- (d) Past Experience/Performance Certificate. Past experience/performance issued by Army/Central Paramilitary forces/Central Govt/State Govt. Departments for three years (i.e. 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20) for supply of fresh ration items (Group ‘B’, ‘C’ &similar items e.g. Veg, Fresh & meat group items) entitled for personnel of Army/Central Para Military Forces/Central Govt/States Govt. Deptts. Past experience value should be equal to 50% or more than the value of the ibid tender. Past experience of any one year with maximum value out of three years will be counted. Past experience value will be considered for contract (s) awarded in a single year only and not by counting two or more years. Deptts. Past experience value should be equal to 50% or more than the value of the ibid tender. Past experience of any one year with maximum value out of three years will be counted. Past experience value will be considered for contract (s) awarded in a single year only and not by counting two or more years. Bids of all those firms whose performance is judged as ‘Not Satisfactory’ or Below Satisfactory/level are liable to be rejected. Relevant and authenticated documents supporting the performance/experience issued by the department concerned where the bidder has made the supply is required to be submitted to tender inviting authority as and when called for, by the competent authority for necessary verification. Bids without supporting documents are liable to be rejected. Past experience certificate will be evaluated for any 01 (one) FY out of total 03 latest years & not on all 03 years combined together. Past experience certificate will be furnished for a period of any 03 latest FYs (e.g. FY 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20).” [7] According to the petitioners, while submitting his bids on 29.12.2020 for supply of Group B & C rations under schedule Nos. 47, 48, 55 & 56, the respondent No. 3 enclosed performance certificates dated 04.09.2019, 15.09.2020 and 10.12.2020 issued by competent authorities for the amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- (Rs. Two lakhs fifty thousand) only for the financial year 2017- 2018, Rs. 3,05,93,296/- (Rs. Three crore five lakh ninety three thousand two hundred ninety six) only for the financial year 2018-19 and Rs. 17,66,700/- (Rs. Seventeen lakh sixty six thousand and seven hundred) only for the financial year 2019-20 respectively. It has also been stated that while submitting his bids, the respondent No. 3 also enclosed a copy of his licence bearing No. 118/2019/TL dated 27.09.2019 wherein, it is clearly indicated that there was no partner at all in the firm. [8] According to the petitioners, the total value of the tenders in respect of schedules 47, 48, 55 & 56 is Rs. 8,40,28,000/- (Rs. Eight crore forty lakhs twenty eight thousand) only and as per the terms and conditions provided under Para No. 6 (d) of the guidelines, all the tenderers/bidders are required to submit the past experience value of not less than Rs. 4,20,14,000/- (Rs. Four crore twenty lakh and fourteen thousand) only, i.e., 50 % of the total value of the tenders. Eight crore forty lakhs twenty eight thousand) only and as per the terms and conditions provided under Para No. 6 (d) of the guidelines, all the tenderers/bidders are required to submit the past experience value of not less than Rs. 4,20,14,000/- (Rs. Four crore twenty lakh and fourteen thousand) only, i.e., 50 % of the total value of the tenders. According to the petitioner, as the respondent No. 3 submitted his past experience certificates altogether amounting to Rs. 3,05,93,296/- (Rs. Three crore five lakh ninety three thousand two hundred ninety six) only, which is less than 50 % of the total value of the tenders, the bids submitted by the respondent No. 3 cannot be acted upon and should be rejected by the respondent No. 2. In view of the above, the petitioners submitted separate representations dated 04.01.2021 to the respondent No. 2 stating, inter alia, that while submitting his bids, the respondent No. 3 submit forged documents and also violates the terms and conditions under Para No. 6 (d) of the guidelines and therefore, requesting the authorities to consider their representations and to investigate in the matter against the respondent No. 3. [9] It has also been stated that in spite of objections raised by the petitioners, the respondent No. 2 did not take up any steps to reject the technical bids submitted by the respondent No. 3 and instead the authorities open the technical bids on 19.02.2021 and issued an order to the effect that the technical bids submitted by the 4 (four) bidders, including the petitioners and the respondent No. 3 herein, are accepted in respect of schedule Nos. 47, 48, 55 & 56. Feeling aggrieved by issuance of the said acceptance letter, the petitioners filed the present writ petition assailing the same and this Court passed an interim order on 23.02.2021 directing that the respondent No.2 may continue with the tender process but it shall not be finalized without the leave of this Court and no work order shall be issued in favour of any person till the next date. Subsequently, by an order dated 26.03.2021, this Court extended the earlier interim order and directed that the present arrangement for supplying of rations made by the authority shall continue. [10] Mr. Subsequently, by an order dated 26.03.2021, this Court extended the earlier interim order and directed that the present arrangement for supplying of rations made by the authority shall continue. [10] Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners raised the following 2 (two) points in assailing the impugned acceptance letter:- (a) the licence dated 27.09.2019 submitted by the respondent No. 3 in connection with his tender bids is a forged and fabricated document manufactured by tempering and accordingly, the respondent No. 2 ought to have rejected the technical bids submitted by the respondent No. 3; and (b) as the total value of the past experience certificates submitted by the respondent No. 3 is less than 50 % of the total value of the tender, the technical bids of the respondent No. 3 cannot be acted upon and ought to have been rejected by the authorities in terms of the conditions provided under Para 6 (d) of the guidelines. [11] To elaborate the first point, it has been submitted by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners that it is on record that there are 2 (two) different licence issued by the Collector, Imphal West in favour of the respondent No. 3 bearing the same number and the same date which are enclosed as annexure A/7 and A/10 to the writ petition. In one of the licence, it is indicated that the respondent No. 3 is the sole proprietor of the firm without any partner and whereas in the other licence, the petitioner is shown to be proprietor of the firm with a partner, viz., S. Thoiba Singh. It has been submitted that the said 2 (two) licence cannot stand together and either one of the licence is not a genuine documents but forged and fabricated documents. It has also been submitted that while participating in an earlier tender process, the respondent No. 3 submitted the licence indicating the firm to be a partnership firm and whereas, in the present tender process the respondent No.3 submitted the licence indicating the firm as a sole proprietor firm without any partner. It has also been submitted that while participating in an earlier tender process, the respondent No. 3 submitted the licence indicating the firm to be a partnership firm and whereas, in the present tender process the respondent No.3 submitted the licence indicating the firm as a sole proprietor firm without any partner. In view of the above, it has been submitted by the learned senior counsel that it is crystal clear that the respondent No. 3 tempered with the licence and submitted a forged and fabricated documents in connection with the present tender and accordingly, the respondent No. 2 ought to have rejected the technical bids submitted by the respondent No. 3. [12] In connection with the second point, the learned senior counsel submitted that the total value of the tender under schedules No. 47,48,55 & 56 is altogether Rs. 8,40,28,000/- (Rs. Eight crore forty lakh twenty eight thousand) only and 50 % of the said amount comes to Rs. 4,20,14,000/- (Rs. Four crore twenty lakh fourteen thousand) only. Since the total value of the past experience/performance certificates submitted by the respondent No. 3 is only Rs. 3,05,93,296/- (Rs. Three crore five lakh ninety three thousand two hundred ninety six) only, it is less than 50 % of the total value of the tender and accordingly, the technical bids submitted by the respondent No. 3 does not fulfill the conditions prescribed under Para 6 (d) of the guidelines and the same cannot be acted upon and is liable to be rejected. [13] Countering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to the first point, Mr. BR Sharma, learned CGSC appearing for the respondents No. 1 & 2 submitted that the bids including the said trade licence of the respondent No. 3 were submitted in connection with an earlier tender process initiated by the DY. D.G. NCC and not by the present respondent No. 2 and that the said bid submitted by the respondent No. 3 was rejected at the stage of opening of the technical bids and as such, there is no question of acting or accepting the trade licence submitted by the respondent No. 3. D.G. NCC and not by the present respondent No. 2 and that the said bid submitted by the respondent No. 3 was rejected at the stage of opening of the technical bids and as such, there is no question of acting or accepting the trade licence submitted by the respondent No. 3. On receiving the complaints submitted by the petitioners with regard to the genuineness of the trade licence submitted by the respondent No. 3 in the present tender process, steps were taken for verification of the said trade licence and in the process, the Deputy Commissioner, Imphal West District, the authority who issued the said trade licence in favour of the respondent No. 3, issued a certificate dated 20.03.2021 certifying that the respondent No. 3 M/S Uday Kumar Singh having trade licence No. 118/2019/ TL is a proprietor firm own by Shri Uday Kumar Singh. In view of the above, it has been submitted that the respondent No. 2 cannot reject the technical bids of the respondent No. 3 purely on the basis of the false and baseless allegation of competing bidders as that will lead to a situation were no tender process can be concluded. [14] With regard to the arguments of the petitioners in connection with point No. 2, it has been submitted by Mr. BR Sharma, learned CGSC, that in every financial year, electronic tenders for supply of fresh ration (Group B & C) to Assam Rifles formation/units are prepared and floated online. For the financial year 2021-22, different NITs for a total of 122 schedules were floated online and schedule numbers 47, 48, 55 & 56 involved in the present writ petitions are among the said 122 schedules. During bidding process, the petitioners submitted complaints alleging, inter alia, that the respondent No. 3 submitted a forged and fabricated documents along with his bidding documents. The complaints were verified by the respondent No. 2 from the issuing authority of the documents and the allegations leveled by the petitioners were found to be false. Thereafter, the technical bids as well as the cost bids of all the 4 (four) bidders who were found to be qualified in eligible were opened by the authorities. On opening the cost bids, the respondent No. 3 was declared as the lowest bidder in all the 4 (four) schedules, i.e., schedule Nos. 47, 48, 55 & 56. [15] Mr. Thereafter, the technical bids as well as the cost bids of all the 4 (four) bidders who were found to be qualified in eligible were opened by the authorities. On opening the cost bids, the respondent No. 3 was declared as the lowest bidder in all the 4 (four) schedules, i.e., schedule Nos. 47, 48, 55 & 56. [15] Mr. BR Sharma, learned CGSC submitted that the petitioners have given incorrect facts regarding the total value of the respondent No. 3’s past experience/performance certificates. It has been submitted that the total value of past experience/performance certificates submitted by the respondent No. 3 is Rs. 5,17,01,016/- (Rs. Five crore seventeen lakh one thousand sixteen) only and not Rs. 3,23,84,996/- (Rs. Three crore twenty three lakh eighty four thousand nine hundred ninety six) only as claim by the petitioners. The details of the value of the past experience/performance certificates in respect of the respondent No. 3 as sown in paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit of respondent No. 1 & 2 are as under:- Sl. No FY Past Experience reflected by Petitioner No. 1 & 2 in the W.P. (C) No.179/2001 Actual Past Experience/ Performance submitted by Respondent No. 3 (M/s Uday Kumar Singh) Performance Certificate issued by (a) 2017-18 2,50,000/- 2,50,000/- Asst Inspector General of Police (Admn), Meghalaya, Shillong (b) 2018-19 3,05,93,296/- 3,05,93,296/- Directorate General Assam Rifles, Shillong (c) 2019-20 17,66,700/- 1,90,76,020/- Directorate General Assam Rifles, Shillong 17,66,700/- Asst Inspector General of Police (Admn), Meghalaya, Shillong 15,000/- Asst Inspector General of Police (Admn), Meghalaya Shillong Total 3,23,84,996/- 5,17,01,016/- [16] It has also been submitted by Mr. BR Sharma, learned CGSC that the total value of all past experience certificates should be 50 % or more of the total tender value that the contractor have applied for, as claim by the petitioners, is incorrect. In Para 6 (d) of the guidelines, it is clearly provided that past experience value should be equal to 50 % or more than the value of the ibid tender and that past experience of any one year with maximum value out of 3 (three) years will be counted. Past experience value will be considered for contract (s) awarded in a single year only and not by counting 2 (two) or more years. Past experience value will be considered for contract (s) awarded in a single year only and not by counting 2 (two) or more years. In view of the above, it is crystal clear that past experience value of one year with maximum value out of 3 (three) years of a contractor should be equal to 50 % or more than the value of the ibid tender, i.e., for one schedule/tender and not for the combine or total value of all tenders for which a contractor had submitted his bids. [17] Mr. BR Sharma, learned CGSC submitted that the respondent No. 3 fulfill all the conditions under Para 6 (d) of the guidelines as will be evident from the schedule/tender wise submission of past experience in respect of respondent No. 3, which are as under:- Tender/ Schedule No Value of the Tender 50 % of the Tender Value of Schedule/ Tender Past experience/ Performance submitted by respondent No. 3 for Schedule/Tender No. 47 Remarks FY Contract Amount Meeting/ Not Meeting 50 % of Tender Value Schedule No. 47 1,75,98,000/- 87,99,000/- 2017-18 2,50,000/- Not meeting As per Clause 6 (d) the respondent No.3 met 50 % of tender value of two years for schedule No. 47 hence technically qualified for opening of cost bid. 2018-19 3,05,93,296/- Meeting 2019-20 2,05,57,720/- Meeting Schedule No. 48 3,58,47,000/- 1,79,23,500/- 2017-18 2,50,000/- Not Meeting As per Clause 6 (d) the respondent No.3 met 50 % of tender value of two years for schedule No. 48 hence technically qualified for opening of cost bid. 2018-19 3,05,93,296/- Meeting 2019-20 2,05,57,720/- Meeting Schedule No. 55 92,03,000/- 46,01,500/- 2017-18 2,50,000/- Not Meeting As per Clause 6 (d) the respondent No. 3 met 50 % of tender value of two years for schedule No. 48 hence technically qualified for opening of cost bid 2018-19 3,05,93,296/- Meeting 2019-20 2,05,57,720/- Meeting Schedule No. 56 2,13,80,000/- 1,06,90,000/- 2017-18 2,50,000/- Not Meeting As per Clause 6 (d) the respondent No. 3 met 50 % of tender value of two years for schedule No. 48 hence technically qualified for opening of cost bid 2018-19 3,05,93,296/- Meeting 2019-20 2,05,57,720/- Meeting [18] Mr. BR Sharma, learned CGSC also submitted that if the respondent No. 2 is to go by misconceived logic of the petitioners that the total value of past experience/performance certificate should be equal to or more than Rs. 4,20,14,000/- (Rs. BR Sharma, learned CGSC also submitted that if the respondent No. 2 is to go by misconceived logic of the petitioners that the total value of past experience/performance certificate should be equal to or more than Rs. 4,20,14,000/- (Rs. Four crore twenty lakh fourteen thousand) only, even then, the respondent No. 3 is still qualified and eligible as the combined value of the past experience/performance certificate of the respondent No. 3 is Rs. 5,17,01,016/- (Rs. Five crore seventeen lakh one thousand sixteen) only, which is more than 50 % of the total value of the tender under schedules No. 47, 48, 55 & 56. On the other hand, as the petitioners have submitted their bids in respect of 23 and 12 schedules, the total tender value of which is Rs. 30,79,67,000/- (Rs. Thirty crore seventy nine lakh sixty seven thousand) only and Rs. 17,59,61,000/- (Rs. Seventeen crore fifty nine lakh sixty one thousand) only, they will never be qualified and eligible as the value of their past experience/performance certificate is not equal to 50 % or more of the total value of their tenders. [19] It is lastly submitted by Mr. BR Sharma that the petitioners did not approach this Court with clean hands and clean heart, inasmuch as they have concealed material facts and presented incorrect facts with an ulterior motive of misdirecting this Court and accordingly, the present writ petition is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed outright. In support of his contentions, the leaned counsel relied on the following judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court :- 1) (1996) 5 SCC 589 : 1996 Legal Eagle (SC) 1193 “Lourdu Mari David v. Louis Chinnaya Arogiaswamy.”(Para 2); and 2) (2007) 8 SCC 449 : 2007 Legal Eagle (SC) 934 “Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India.” (Para 33, 35 & 37) [20] In connection with the first point raised by the counsel for the petitioners, it has been submitted by Mr. L. Shashibhushan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 that the Licensing Authority under the Manipur Trade Articles (Licensing & Control) order 1986, issued a trade licence dated 27.09.2019 in favour of the respondent No. 3, wherein, it was inadvertently shown, in the front page of the licence, the firm to be a partnership firm consisting of 2 (two) partners, even though, in the last page of the said trade licence, the respondent No. 3 was clearly shown as the sole proprietor of the firm. [21] On detecting the mistake committed by the licensing authority in the first page of the said trade licence, the alleged partner viz., Shri. S. Thoiba Singh filed an application dated 27.09.2019 to the Deputy Commissioner, Imphal West, who is the licensing authority, highlighting the aforesaid mistake of showing the said Shri S. Thoiba Singh as a partner of the said firm and requesting to strikeout/ delete his name from the aforesaid trade licence. [22] On receipt of the said application dated 27.09.2019 submitted by Shri. S. Thoiba Singh and also on bringing to the notice of the licensing authority the aforesaid mistake committed at the time of issuing the said trade licence, the licensing authority corrected the aforesaid mistake and issued a fresh licence in favour of the respondent No. 1, wherein, the respondent No. 3 is correctly shown as the sole proprietor of the firm. In view of the above, it has been submitted that the allegation raised by the petitioners that the respondent No. 3 submitted a forged and fabricated trade licence and that he tempered with the said trade licence are totally false and without any basis. [23] Mr. In view of the above, it has been submitted that the allegation raised by the petitioners that the respondent No. 3 submitted a forged and fabricated trade licence and that he tempered with the said trade licence are totally false and without any basis. [23] Mr. L. Shashibhushan, learned counsel also submitted that on a plain reading of the aforesaid application dated 27.09.2019 submitted by Shri. S. Thoiba Singh, it can be clearly seen that the said S. Thoiba Singh is just the land owner whose land had been taken on lease by the respondent No. 3 for the purpose of running his business and that the said S. Thoiba Singh never entered into any partnership agreement with the respondent No. 3 at any point of time and accordingly, the question of Shri S. Thoiba Sing being a partner with the respondent No. 3 does not arise at all and that his name had been wrongly entered in the first page of the said trade licence, even though, the true and correct nature of proprietorship of the respondent No. 3 is reflected/ shown in the last page of the said trade licence. It has further been submitted that the respondent No. 3 had submitted a copy of the incorrect trade licence in connection with an earlier tender process due to oversight and bona fide mistake, however, his tender bids were rejected and as such, there is no question of utilizing the incorrect trade licence by the respondent No. 3. [24] The learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 also submitted that the validity of the said trade licence had been accepted by the respondent No. 2 after making necessary enquiries and after proper verification. Accordingly, the petitioners have no right or locus standi to allege that the trade licence issued in favour of the respondent No. 3 is not a valid documents unless they challenge the validity of the said trade licence by filing appropriate proceedings before the competent authorities or Court. Moreover, whether the trade licence issued in favour of the respondent No. 3 is valid or not is purely a disputed question of fact and such disputed questions of fact cannot be decided by this Court in exercise of its power for Judicial review under article 226 of the constitution of India. Moreover, whether the trade licence issued in favour of the respondent No. 3 is valid or not is purely a disputed question of fact and such disputed questions of fact cannot be decided by this Court in exercise of its power for Judicial review under article 226 of the constitution of India. In support of his contentions, the counsel for the respondent No. 3 relied on the following judgments of the Apex Court:- 1) (1977) 1 SCC 561 : 1976 Legal Eagle (SC) 480 “P. Radhakrishna Naidu & Others v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others.” (Para 13); 2) (1999) 7 SCC 298 : 1999 Legal Eagle (SC) 988 “Chairman, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. (Gridco) & Others v. Sukamani Das (Smt) and Another.” (Para 6) and 3) (2010) 11 SCC 186 : 2010 Legal Eagle (SC) 535 “Zonal Manager, Central Bank of India v. Devi Ispat Ltd.” (Para 25). [25] In connection with second point raised on behalf of the petitioners, it has been submitted by Mr. L. Shashibhushan that different NITs for a total of 122 schedules were floated online by the respondent No. 2 and in fact, 4 (four) different NITs in respect of schedules No. 47, 48, 55 & 56 were issued and the same are enclosed as Annexures B/3, B/3(i), B/3(ii) and B/3 (iii) in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No. 3. All the said NITs and contract works under different schedules cannot be combined and club together at all since the contract works are distinct and different from each other. [26] The learned counsel further submitted that the conditions under Para 6 (d) of the guidelines have not been correctly interpreted by the petitioners. In Para 6 (d) of the guidelines, it is clearly mentioned that “past experience value should be equal to 50 % or more than the value of the Ibid tender. Past experience of any one year with maximum value out of 3 (three) years will be counted” meaning thereby that past experience value of 1 (one) year with maximum value should be equal to 50 % or more than the value of a particular tender. Past experience of any one year with maximum value out of 3 (three) years will be counted” meaning thereby that past experience value of 1 (one) year with maximum value should be equal to 50 % or more than the value of a particular tender. If the interpretation given by the respondents that the combine past experience value of 3 (three) years of a contractor should be equal to 50 % or more than the combine value of all the tenders participated by the contractor is accepted, then there will be serious consequences. The petitioners, who have submitted their bids in connection with 23 schedules and 12 schedules respectively, amounting to Rs. 30,79,67,000/- (Rs. Thirty crore seventy nine lakh sixty seven thousand) only and Rs. 17,59,61,000/- (Rs. Seventeen crore fifty nine lakh sixty one thousand) only respectively, will not be qualified or eligible at all as their past experience/performance certificate is much less than 50 % of the total value of their tenders. On the other hand, the respondent No. 3 who have submitted his bids in respect of only 4 (four) schedules will be qualified and eligible inasmuch as his combine past experience value of 3 (three) years is more than 50 % of the total value of the said 4 (four) tenders. [27] By relying on several Supreme Court Judgments, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 that the owner or the employer of a project, having author the tender documents is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements and interpret its documents. The constitutional Courts must differ to his 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. It has also been submitted that exercise of powers of Judicial review would be called for, if the approach are arbitrary or mala fide or procedure adopted is meant to favour one. It has also been submitted that exercise of powers of Judicial review would be called for, if the approach are arbitrary or mala fide or procedure adopted is meant to favour one. But where a decision is taken that is manifestly in consonance with the language of the tender document or sub serves the purpose for which the tender is floated, Court should follow the principle of restraint. Technical evaluation or comparison by the Court would be impermissible. The principle that is applied to scan and understand an ordinary instrument relatable to contract in other spheres has to be treated differently than interpreting and the appreciating tender documents relating to technical works and projects requiring special skills. The owner should be allowed to carry out the purpose and there has to be allowance for free play in the joints. The learned counsel have cited the following judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court:- 1) (2016) 15 SCC 272 : 2016 Legal Eagle (SC) 1181 “Montecarlo Limited v. National Thermal Power Corporation Limited.” (Para 19-26); 2) (2017) 4 SCC 170 : 2017 Legal Eagle (SC) 149 “JSW Infrastructure Limited and Another v. Kakinada Seaports Limited and Others.” (Para 10); 3) (2020) 16 SCC 489 : 2019 Legal Eagle (SC) 883 “Silppi Constructions Contractors v. Union of India and Another.” (Para 19-20) and 4) (2020) 16 SCC 759 : 2020 Legal Eagle (SC) 295 “Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Amr Dev Prabha.” (Para 50-52). [28] After hearing the rival contentions advanced by the counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered view that initially a trade licence bearing No. 118/2019/TL dated 27.09.2019 was issued by the Collector, Imphal West, who is the licensing authority, in favour of the respondent No. 3. In the front page of the said trade licence, the firm is shown to be a partnership firm with Shri S. Thoiba Singh as its partner and at the same time in the last page of the said trade licence, the respondent No. 3 is shown to the sole proprietor of the firm. In the front page of the said trade licence, the firm is shown to be a partnership firm with Shri S. Thoiba Singh as its partner and at the same time in the last page of the said trade licence, the respondent No. 3 is shown to the sole proprietor of the firm. On realizing the mistake committed by the licensing authority, the said Shri S. Thoiba Singh submitted an application dated 27.09.2019 to the licensing authority with a request for striking out/ deleting his name from the said trade licence by stating that he is the owner of the land which has been taken on lease by the respondent No. 3 for business purpose. On receiving the said application, the licensing authority issued a fresh trade license bearing the same number and same date as that of the earlier licence issued in favour of the respondent No. 3. In the said fresh trade licence, the respondent No. 3 is shown as the sole proprietor and this Court did not find any material to doubt the validity of the said trade licence. This Court also find no reason to doubt the statements made by the respondent No. 3 that he had submitted the incorrect trade licence while submitting his bid in the earlier tender process for the year 2019-2020 due to oversight and bona fide mistake. [29] Since the incorrect trade licence of the respondent No. 3 had not been utilized for obtaining any earlier contract work and since the respondent no. 2 had accepted the validity of the corrected trade licence of the respondent No. 3 after making necessary enquiries and verification, this Court is not incline to interfere with the impugned acceptance letter on the basis of the first point urged by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners. [30] With regard to the second point, this Court is of the considered view that the respondents have correctly interpreted the conditions prescribed under Para 6 (d) of the guidelines, more so, when the respondent No. 2 is the author of the said guidelines. [30] With regard to the second point, this Court is of the considered view that the respondents have correctly interpreted the conditions prescribed under Para 6 (d) of the guidelines, more so, when the respondent No. 2 is the author of the said guidelines. On careful consideration of the conditions prescribed under Para 6 (d) of the guidelines, this Court is of the considered view that the condition postulated therein is that past experience/performance with maximum value of 1 (one) year out of 3 (three) years will be counted and such past experience value should be equaled to 50 % or more than the value of a particular tender. [31] On examination of the charts given by the respondent No.2, which are reproduced herein-above at paragraph 15 & 17, this Court finds that the respondent No. 3 is qualified and eligible and this Court finds no reason to hold otherwise or to reject the decision of the respondent No. 2 in accepting the technical bids of the respondent No. 3. [32] Even if the Petitioners’ interpretations of the conditions under Para 6 (d) of the guidelines are accepted, this Court still finds that the respondent No. 3 is still qualified since the total value of his past experience/performance certificate is Rs. 5,17,01,016/- (Rs. Five crore seventeen lakh one thousand sixteen) only, which is more than 50% of the total tender value of the contract works under schedules No. 47, 48, 55 & 56. On the other hand, the writ petitioners will not be qualified and eligible as the value of their past experience/performance certificate is not equal to 50 % or more of the total value of their tender. [33] For the findings and reasons given herein above and in view of the well settled principles of law laid down by the Apex Court regarding the parameters and limitations of this Court for interfering with the process of tender for awarding contracts, which have been clearly and elaborately laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the Judgments relied on by the respondent No. 3 hereinabove, this Court find no ground or reason for interfering with the impugned acceptance letter. In the result, the present writ petition fails and accordingly, the same is dismissed, however, without any cost. Earlier interim order stands vacated.