ORDER : Heard Mr.D.Das, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Khound for the Petitioner. I have also heard Mr. S.K. Goswami, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 6 and Mr. P. Sarma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3. 2. An application seeking vacation/modification/alteration of the order dated 20/9/2022 passed in W.P.(C) No.6190/2022 has been filed by the Respondent No. 6 which has been registered as I.A.(C) No. 3128/2022. It is relevant to take note of that this Court vide an order dated 20/9/2022 had directed the Respondent (AFDC) would originally open the price bid of the petitioner which should be subject to further order that may be passed in the case. Further to that, there was a direction that the tender may be processed on such basis but no final order of settlement should be issued till the next date fixed. It is on account of this order, the Respondent No. 6 who claims to be qualified and the highest bidder has approached by filing the above application. It is noteworthy to mention that the said application came up for consideration before this Court. Taking into consideration that the decision in this application can only be taken by deciding the merits, the instant writ petition has been taken up for final disposal. 3. For the purpose of appreciating the dispute it is relevant to take note of that the respondent/AFDC Ltd. had on 22/8/2022 issued a two bids tender (technical and financial bids) inviting interested SC individuals and registered Societies for SC communities having 100% actual fishermen for settlement of 1 No. of Beel Fisheries under the administrative control of AFDC Ltd. The entire bid document however have not been filed along with the writ petition. Be that as it may, amongst the various documents required to be submitted along with the tender notice, it was mentioned that the up-to-date Bakijai Clearance Certificate has to be submitted. The petitioner admittedly did not submit the up-to-date Bakijai Clearance Certificate, instead had submitted a Bakijai Clearance Certificate which had already expired. Pursuant thereto, while evaluating the technical bid, the respondent Nos. 4, 5, 6 ,7 and 8 have been found to be technically viable which was brought to the attention of all concerned vide the notice dated 16/9/2022. The petitioner admittedly did not submit the up-to-date Bakijai Clearance Certificate, instead had submitted a Bakijai Clearance Certificate which had already expired. Pursuant thereto, while evaluating the technical bid, the respondent Nos. 4, 5, 6 ,7 and 8 have been found to be technically viable which was brought to the attention of all concerned vide the notice dated 16/9/2022. Subsequent thereto the petitioner on coming to learn about the same submitted an application to the Managing Director of AFDC Ltd. requesting the latter to inform as to why his bid has been rejected. Although there was no reply by the Managing Director of the AFDC but the petitioner on enquiry came to learn that on account of non-submission of the updated Bakijai Clearance Certificate, the bid of the petitioner has been rejected. It is under such circumstances, that the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Bakijai Clearance certificate is not an essential term of the notice inviting tender and as such the rejection of the technical bid of the petitioner suffers from unreasonableness and irrationality. The learned counsel referring to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Abu Tali Vs The Assam Fisheries Development Corporation Ltd. and Ors.(WA No. 294/2011 dated 29/9/2011) submitted that the Division Bench of this Court had held that submission of the Bakijai Clearance Certificate is not an essential term of the notice inviting tender. He therefore, submitted that as the rejection of the petitioner’s technical bid in the teeth of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 29/9/2011, the impugned Notice dated 16/9/2022 is required to be interfered with. 5. On the other hand, Mr. S.K. Goswami, the learned counsel for the applicant/respondent No. 6 had submitted that it is the requirement as per the NIT for submission of the up-to-date Bakijai Clearance Certificate and admittedly the Bakijai Clearance Certificate so submitted by the petitioner was an expired Bakijai Clearance Certificate which could not have been taken into consideration by the technical committee for which the technical bid of the petitioner was rightly rejected. He further submitted that it is the tendering authority who is the best judge to ascertain as to whether the submission of the Bakijai Clearance Certificate is an essential condition and in the instant case, the tendering authorities had come to a finding that the submission of Bakijai Clearance Certificate is an essential condition. The learned counsel further submitted that the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 29/9/2011 passed in Abu Talim (supra) does not apply to the facts of the instant case inasmuch as the facts therein was to the effect that the tendering authorities therein did not consider that the Bakijai Clearance Certificate to be an essential condition and granted the contract to the writ appellant. However, it was the Single Bench of this Court which held that the Bakijai Clearance Certificate was an essential condition. It is under such circumstances, taking into consideration that it is the tendering authority who has to make the decision as to what is an essential condition, the Division Bench of this Court had interfered with the said finding of the Single Bench and passed the order dated 29/9/2011 upholding the contract granted in favour of the appellant therein. He therefore, submitted that when in the instant case the tendering authority had held that the Bakijai clearance certificate is an essential term, this Court ought not to exercise the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution. 6. Mr. P. Sarma, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the AFDC has drawn the attention of this Court to the terms of the tender notice and more particularly to Clause 7.4 which categorically had stipulated that up-to-date Bakijai Clearance Certificate has to be given. It was also mentioned clearly in the said Clause that unless and until the Bakijai Clearance Certificate up-to-date is not submitted the bid would not be accepted. He therefore, submitted that the petitioner knew very well about this term in the tender notice and in that regard he has also drawn the attention to the tender submitted by the petitioner wherein the petitioner had also signed in the said tender document acknowledging the contents of Clause 7.4 of the NIT. Further drawing the attention of this Court to the records, he submitted that petitioner’s technical bid was rejected on the ground that the Bakijai Clearance Certificate had expired. Further drawing the attention of this Court to the records, he submitted that petitioner’s technical bid was rejected on the ground that the Bakijai Clearance Certificate had expired. He therefore, submitted that this is not a fit case for exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution taking into account that there is no irrationality, unreasonableness or procedural impropriety which are the requirements as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in Tata Cellular vs.Union of India reported in (1994) 6 SCC 651 . 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the materials on record including the records produced by the learned Standing Counsel for the AFDC. 8. Taking into account that the decision in the interlocutory application will touch upon the merits of the writ petition, the instant writ petition is taken up for disposal inasmuch as the issue involved herein is as to whether interference under Article 226 is called for in respect to the rejection of the technical bid of the petitioner for want of the updated Bakijai Clearance Certificate. As already noted hereinabove, Clause 7.4 of the tender conditions clearly mandated submission of the up-to-date Bakijai Clearance Certificate. It was also mentioned in the said Clause itself that without the submission of the up-to-date Bakijai Clearance Certificate, the tender shall not be accepted. From the bid of the petitioner which was being placed before this Court by the learned counsel for the AFDC, it is apparent that the petitioner knew about the Clause 7.4 and then also submitted an expired Bakijai Clearance Certificate. 9. At this stage, if this Court takes into account the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Tata Cellular(supra), certain principles, namely, the modern trend pointing to judicial restraint on administrative action; the role of the court is only to review the manner in which the decision has been taken; the lack of expertise on the part of the Court to correct the administrative decision; the conferment of freedom of contract on the Government which recognizes a fair play in the joint as a necessary concomitant for an administrative body functioning in an administrative sphere or quasi administrative sphere, were laid down. It was also stated in the said case that the administrative decision must not only be tested by the application of the Wednesbury principle of reasonableness but also must be free from arbitrariness not affected by bias or actuated by malafides. 10. It is also relevant to take note of another judgment rendered in the case of Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. reported in (2016) 16 SCC 818 wherein the principle that the interpretation placed to appreciate the tender requirements and to interpret the documents by the owner or the employer unless malafide or perversity in understanding or appreciation is reflected, the Constitutional Court should not interfere was stated. Paragraph 15 of the said judgment being relevant is quoted herein below : “15. We may add that the owner or the employer of a project, having Page No.24/33 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.” 11. In another very recent judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Agmatel India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Resoursys Telecoms reported in (2022) 5 SCC 362 , the Supreme Court while dealing with the question of interpretation given by the tendering authority to the terms of the tender and the scope of judicial review in such matters observed at paragraph No. 39 as hereinunder:- “39. The above-mentioned statements of law make it amply clear that the author of the tender document is taken to be the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements; and if its interpretation is manifestly in consonance with the language of the tender document or subserving the purchase of the tender, the Court would prefer to keep restraint. The above-mentioned statements of law make it amply clear that the author of the tender document is taken to be the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements; and if its interpretation is manifestly in consonance with the language of the tender document or subserving the purchase of the tender, the Court would prefer to keep restraint. Further to that, the technical evaluation or comparison by the Court is impermissible ; and even if the interpretation given to the tender document by the person inviting offers is not as such acceptable to the Constitutional Court, that, by itself, would not be a reason for interfering with the interpretation given.” 12. From the above judgments referred to, it would be therefore clear that ordinarily the soundness of a decision taken by the employer ought not be questioned but the decision making process can certainly be subject to judicial review. The soundness of the decision may be questioned, if it is irrational, or malafide or is intended to favour someone or a decision that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with the relevant law could have reached. Further to that, from the judgment in Afcons Ltd. (supra), the Supreme court had observed that whether term of the NIT is essential or not is a decision of an employer which should be respected and if the authority concerned deviates from it, the deviation should be made applicable to the bidders and potential bidders. 13. In the instant case, Clause 7.4 of the terms of the tender categorically mandated for submission of the up-to-date Bakijai Clearance Certificate. It was also mandated clearly that the said up-to-date Bakijai Clearance Certificate if not submitted, the tender shall not be accepted. The petitioner knowing it very well, then also had submitted an expired Bakijai Clearance Certificate. The committee deciding the technical bid had duly taken note of the said aspect of the matter and had rejected the technical bid of the petitioner on the ground that the Bakijai Clearance Certificate had expired. There is no malafide or perversity or irrationality or unreasonableness that could be seen from the decision of the tendering authority in rejecting the technical bid of the petitioner. 14. Considering the above, this Court therefore is of the opinion that this is not a fit case for exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 15. There is no malafide or perversity or irrationality or unreasonableness that could be seen from the decision of the tendering authority in rejecting the technical bid of the petitioner. 14. Considering the above, this Court therefore is of the opinion that this is not a fit case for exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 15. The records which have been placed before this Court by Mr. P. Sarma, learned counsel for the AFDC is returned. 16. The Respondent/AFDC shall do the needful in accordance with law.