JUDGMENT : Javed Iqbal Wani, J. The petitioner in the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution implores for the following reliefs:- (a) Issue writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction thereby quashing/setting aside the decision of Respondent No. 1 of awarding the contract to Respondent No. 3 pursuant to Notice inviting tender No. NIT/JKMSCL/MACH2019/35 dated 19.08.2019; (b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing Respondent No. 1 to consider the Petitioner’s bid and forthwith award the contract to the petitioner. (c) Issue a writ of prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order or direction thereby restraining Respondent No. 1 from placing orders upon respondent No. 3: (d) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction thereby directing respondent No. 1 to forthwith withdraw the purchase orders/rate contracts (if any) issued to respondent. 3. (e) Award the costs of the present petition in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent. (f) Pass ad interim ex-parte order in terms of prayers (a) to (e) made hereinabove; and (g) grant such other or further reliefs in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents as this Hon’ court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The reliefs aforesaid are being sought on the facts detailed out in the petition and in brief spelt out hereunder: - Facts :- • It is stated by the petitioner that initially a notice inviting tender (NIT) dated 10.07.2019 followed by NIT dated 19.08.2019 are issued by respondent No. 1 for procuring Low-Temperature Hydrogen Peroxide Gas Plasma Sterilizer. • The petitioner is stated to have submitted its bid in response to the NIT as on 01.10.2019. Respondent No. 1 is stated to have accepted only two bids one that of the petitioner and another of respondent No. 3 herein as per the bidder list available on website of respondent No. 1 as on 01.10.2019. • The petitioner is stated to have submitted its bid in response to the NIT as on 01.10.2019. Respondent No. 1 is stated to have accepted only two bids one that of the petitioner and another of respondent No. 3 herein as per the bidder list available on website of respondent No. 1 as on 01.10.2019. • It is being further stated that respondent No. 1 vide letter dated 01.11.2019 shortlisted the petitioner for further evaluation by the panel of technical experts requesting the petitioner to give a power point presentation on 06.11.2019 with respect to the products to be supplied by the petitioner, in response whereof a detailed presentation is stated to have been given by the petitioner besides submitting documents sought in the letter dated 01.11.2019. • It is being next stated that Respondent No. 1 opened the price bid on 12.12.2019 while declaring the petitioner as L-1 with details of price bid available on website of respondent No. 1 as per Bill of Quantities (BOQ). • It is being further stated that apart from providing bid amounts, a quote was required to be provided by the bidders for consumables and accessories of BOQ-2. The petitioner is stated to have provided the said quotations of Rs. 17,72,702/- (fixed amount for the next five years) whereas, the respondent No. 3 is stated to have not provided the said quotation. • It is being next stated that subsequent to the opening of the price bid and declaration of the petitioner as L-1 therein, the petitioner came to know that the respondent No. 1 has negotiated the prices of consumables and accessories with respondent No. 3 wherein respondent No. 3 had agreed to provide the said consumables and accessories free of cost. No such negotiation is stated to have been entered into by respondent No. 1 with the petitioner. • It is being further stated that consequent to the aforesaid negotiations between the respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 1, the respondent No. 1 had added the quotation of consumables and accessories to the total price bid of the petitioner and no such amount had been added to the price bid of respondent No. 3, as a result whereof the respondent No. 1 is stated to have wrongfully and arbitrarily started considering the bid of the petitioner higher than that of the bid of respondent No. 3. A letter dated 18.12.2019 in this regard is stated to have submitted by the petitioner to respondent No. 1 for treating the petitioner to be as L-1 and not the respondent No. 3. • It is being next stated that respondent No. 1 in response to the letter dated 18.12.2019 of the petitioner sent an e-mail to the petitioner with a tabular chart containing the bid amount of the petitioner implying in the said e-mail that the petitioner is L-2 and not L-1. The said e-mail is stated to have been responded to by the petitioner ascertaining that the offer of respondent No. 3 is invalid. • It is being further stated that on 30.12.2019 the petitioner sent an e-mail to the respondent No. 1 for re-evaluating the price bid and to award the contract to the petitioner. The said e-mail is stated to have been followed by another e-mail dated 17.01.2020 requesting therein for issuance of allotment order to the petitioner on account of the bid of respondent No. 3 to be invalid. • It is being further stated that upon failure of respondent No. 1 to respond to the said aforesaid e-mails, the petitioner sent a letter to respondent No. 1 on 09.04.2020 requesting therein for issuance of allotment order in favour of the petitioner on account of it having been declared as L-1. • It is being next stated that the petitioner came to know that respondent No. 1 instead of holding the bid of respondent No. 3 as non-responsive, wrongly added “free of cost towards consumables and accessories in the bid of respondent No. 3”. • It is being further stated that the petitioner in a meeting with respondent No. 1 also offered weaving/providing discount on the amount towards consumables and accessories to match the bid of respondent No. 3 but the said offer is stated to have not got positive response. • It is being next stated that on 27.08.2020 petitioner learnt that the contract is awarded to respondent No. 3 instead of to the petitioner resulting into filing of an appeal before the 1st and Final Appellate Authority in terms of the tender which appeal is stated to have been not been responded to by the respondent No. 1 despite passage of ten days. Whereafter on account of non consideration of the appeal, has also apprehension of unjust and unfair decision and determination of the said appeal by the respondent No. 1, the petitioner states to have filed the instant petition. While maintaining the instant petition, it is contended in the petition that in terms of Clause 11 of Technical specification for low Temperature Hydrogen Peroxide Gas of all consumables and accessories were required for freezing for the next 5 years to be expired periodically and that as per the clause 13 of the instructions the bidders as well has noticed in III item whereas, bidders were not permitted to quote (zero) anywhere in Bill of Quantities (BOQ). Case setup by the petitioner • It is alleged by the petitioner in the petition that respondent No. 3 submitted its bid without providing a quotation for consumables and accessories in disregard to Clause 13 of the aforesaid instructions as well as notice rendering the bid of the respondent No. 3 to be rejected and disentitling the respondent No. 3 to the award of contract by respondent No. 1. • It is further alleged by the petitioner in the instant petition that in terms of Clause 2.7 of GCC (contained in the tender documents), the bidders were not permitted to upload the quote rates in the technical bid and if so done, the bid was liable to be out rightly rejected. • It is alleged by the petitioner in the petition that respondent No. 3 submitted a list of quoted items alongwith its technical bid and has mentioned that certain bids (description provided in the document) would be provided free of cost which as such had been violation of aforesaid Clause 2.7 of GCC rendering the tender of the respondent No. 3 to be rejected at the threshold. The respondent No. 3 is alleged to have not furnished of its final statements in terms of Clause 4 of the quotation criteria but had furnished the same of M/s Johnson and Johnson Pvt. Ltd. • It is next alleged in the petition that respondent No. 3 had not submitted information/documents pertaining to its qualification for bidding and had instead provided documents of an original equipment manufacturer of M/s Johnson and Johnson Pvt Ltd. A declaration in terms of Clause 8 of qualification criteria is alleged not to have been furnished by the respondent No. 3 but has been furnished of M/s Johnson and Johnson Pvt Ltd. • It is further alleged in the petition that respondent No. 3 had neither an average annual turnout of Rs. 5 crores in the last three years nor had had provided any document thereto with the bid in terms of table 1 of the technical specifications, but instead submitted the average turnover of M/s Johnson and Johnson Pvt. Ltd. • It is further alleged that the respondent No. 3 did not submitted any document along with the technical bid showing that it had over five years experience in selling Sterilizer, but the respondent No. 3 instead had submitted the document of M/s Johnson and Johnson Pvt. Ltd in this regard. • It is next alleged in the petition that Clause 1 of the qualification criteria required the bidder to be an original manufacturer, direct importer or authorized representative of the original manufacturer/direct importer, who must have manufactured/imported, supplied and installed such equipment in India satisfactorily additionally requiring the bidder to submit a sale attested copy of orders, indent and invoice and the respondent No. 3 is stated to have not fulfilled the requirement of the said Clause 1 in its technical bid. • It is further alleged in the petition that the action of the respondent No. 1 of awarding contract to respondent No. 3 instead to the petitioner caused loss of opportunity to the petitioner besides burdening the respondent No. 1 advantages of competitive bidding and burden of exchequer while awarding contract to a higher bidder. 20 purchase orders are alleged to have been likely issued by the respondent No. 1 of the products to be supplied. An amount of Rs. 20 purchase orders are alleged to have been likely issued by the respondent No. 1 of the products to be supplied. An amount of Rs. 3.1 crores is alleged to be incurred an additional burden on the exchequer by respondent No. 1 in the event of accepting the bid of respondent No. 3 instead of the petitioner. Response of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 3. Per contra, respondents 1 and 2 have filed objections to the petition wherein it has been inter-alia contended that the petitioner raises disputed question of fact which may not be gone into under Article 226 of the Constitution and that the petitioner has suppressed the material facts disentitling the petitioner to any relief in the writ petition. • It is being further contended in the objections that the terms of the NIT are clear and specific and in terms of information of the NIT the overall cost has to be worked out on the basis of the rates quoted for all the three conditions i.e. (i) Main item/main machinery (ii) Accessories/consumables and (iii) Comprehensive mandatory contract/CMC. • It is being next contended that the respondent did not quote any rate for any consumable in the technical bid and that it had been verified that nothing will be separately charged for the consumables while mentioning the list of said consumables. • It is being stated that the quote in the technical bid quoting the rate is different thing and not charging for consumables is different and as such, it cannot be said that the respondent declared the rate of consumables in the technical bid. The reliance placed on Clause 2.7 by the petitioner in this stated is stated to be misplaced. The relevant clause reproduced in the objection is extracted and referred to hereunder:- “The price for evaluating L-1 (as per BOQ’s) shall be decided on the basis of cumulative rates of the main item, accessories, (whenever asked) and CMC i.e. cost of main item plus cost of accessories plus Indian items plus CMC is equal to total cost of equipment”. • It is further contended in the objections that in terms of the aforesaid clause the expert Committee evaluated the technical and financial bids as a result whereof the total bid amount of the petitioner was found at Rs. 98,95,294.75/- and that of the respondent No. 3 at Rs. • It is further contended in the objections that in terms of the aforesaid clause the expert Committee evaluated the technical and financial bids as a result whereof the total bid amount of the petitioner was found at Rs. 98,95,294.75/- and that of the respondent No. 3 at Rs. 97,05,500.00/- and therefore in this view of the matter the respondent No. 3 was found to be L-1 instead of the petitioner. • It is next contended in the objections that while denying the contentions raised by the petitioner in the writ petition that the allotment of the contract has been done in terms of the conditions of the NIT in favour of the respondent No. 3 being the lowest bidder. • Further the contention of the petitioner is denied that the bidder had to submit quote for every item. The respondent No. 3 is stated to have not been charging anything separately for accessories/consumables as no separate quote and that there was no requirement for providing a separate quote for the same as the cost of Sterilizer included within it the cost of accessories/consumables. • In so far as the contention of the petitioner about the average turnover of Rs. 5 crores for the last three years is concerned, it is stated in the objections that the respondent No. 3 had submitted the bid as an authorized representative of the importer/manufacturer of M/s Johnson and Johnson Pvt. Ltd. As such, the bid of respondent No. 3 was accepted and consequently contract allotted. • It is further stated in the objections that the technical evaluation of the document was conducted by the technical evaluation committee and that a list of qualifying bidders was prepared after holding a meeting on 31.10.2020 the said committee decided to call the qualified bidders to demonstrate the equipment before the technical experts and that same was only the qualifying list and not the final list of the bidders and that the final bidder was selected only after examination of the technical as well as the financial bid and that the respondent No. 3 was found to be lowest bidder and consequently awarded the contract. Response of Respondent No. 3 4. Response of Respondent No. 3 4. Respondent No. 3 has also filed objections to the petition wherein at the outset it is being stated that in response to the NIT dated 19.08.2019, the respondent being authorized representative of M/s Johnson and Johnson Pvt. Ltd responded to the NIT being a manufacturer/direct importer fulfilling the turnover Clause provided in the NIT. • It is being further stated that product sought to be purchased under the NIT is not being manufactured in India but by M/s Johnson and Johnson Pvt. Ltd. USA being imported to and marketed in India. • It is being next stated in the objections that in terms of BOQ the bidder was required to submit the rates separately for main item/accessories/consumables in India items and the bidder was required to submit the rate for Comprehensive Maintenance Contract (CMC) for five years (separately for each of the five years) and that said CMC was operating after the expiry of five years warranty period. • It is further stated in the objection that item wise financial bid BOQ was to be finally worked out by totaling the entire amount quoted by the bidder in item description plus total amount of five years. • It is stated that the petitioner and the respondent No. 3 had submitted their bids for Plasma Sterilizer and for operating the said machines, some accessories/consumables were required from India itself and that the value of bid was to be evaluated finally by all set of accessories/consumables. • It is further stated that as per the note 12 of the item wise financial bid (BOQ) for finalization of the rates and for evaluating L-1, same have had to be done on the basis of cumulative rates of main item/accessories /consumables i.e. cost of main item (CMC) plus cost of accessories/consumables plus Indian items is equal to total cost of equipment and that upon evaluating the bid of the respondent No. 3 in the aforesaid manner, same was found to be lower than that of the petitioner with a difference of about 1.90 lacs declaring the respondent No. 3 as L-1 and intimate thereto by respondent No. 1 through letter of intimation dated 16.01.2020 followed by issuance of rate of contract in favour of respondent No. 1 dated 20.07.2020. • It is further stated that under clause 37 of GCC the Managing Director of respondent No. 1 otherwise had been vested with power to relax or change/modify the terms and conditions in the exigencies excluding the fundamental changes. • It is further stated in the objection that answering respondent did not charge separately for accessories/consumables and had verified that the cost of Sterilizer would include within it the cost of accessories/consumables as well and there was as such not need to provide separate rate for said accessories/consumables. The rate quoted by the answering respondents for the main item is stated to have inclusive of the accessories and India items and for CMC the respondents is stated to have quoted its rates separately and that rate of the bid was worked out accordingly by combining all the factors as provided in the format declaring the respondent No. 3 as L-1. The contention of the petitioner that Zero could not have been quoted for any item on the BOQ in this view of the matter becomes insignificant and that the said contention of not quoting Zero otherwise is stated to be an ancillary condition not rendering the bid unresponsive and that it was to be decided by the respondent No. 1 who considered the same and found the offer of the bid of the answering respondent in public interest. The contention of the petitioner in the petition that the respondent No. 3 disclosed/uploaded rates in the technical bid is being denied by the respondent in the objections as the respondent states to have offered Sterilant for 1500 cycles and that the cost of the main item i.e. Sterilizer included the supply of Sterlant for all five years as well. • It is admitted in the objections that the respondent No. 3 submitted its bid as an authorized representative of the manufacturer/direct importer and as per the technical specifications, had submitted the average annual turnover of the manufacture/importer and was not as such required to place on record its own annual turnover and that otherwise also average annual turnover of respondent No. 3 had been more than five crores for the last more than three years. • It is further stated in the objections that respondent No. 3 had offered accessories/consumables free of costs in the financial bid and had not quoted any rates separately and as such there was no question of having no negotiations in this regard with respondent No. 1 after the opening of financial bid. • It is further stated that the power point presentation/demonstration was also made by M/s Johnson and Johnson Pvt. Ltd on 06.11.2019 whereafter certain clarifications were sought on 08.,11.2019 by the official respondents whereafter letter of intent is stated to have been issued in favour of the respondent No. 3 on 16.01.2020 and responded by respondent No. 3 thereto on 26.02.2020 and undertaking is also stated to have given by respondent No. 3 to the extent that price and accessories/consumables are free and are included as such in the main item. No negotiations whatsoever is stated to have been entertained into between the respondent no. 3 and respondent No. 1 except that some clarifications had been sought by respondent No. 1 from respondent No. 3. • Lastly it is contended in the objections that bid of the petitioner was higher than that of the respondent No. 3 as such, the respondent No. 3 was preferred by the respondent No. 1 in the interest of public exchequer. The price bid as submitted by the petitioner is stated to have been for an amount of Rs. 98,95,294.74/- as against the price bid of respondent No. 3 for Rs. 97,05,500/-. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Before adverting to the issues involved in the instant petition, it would be appropriate to refer to various decisions of the Apex court on the interference in tender matters referred to in a recent judgement of the Apex court in case titled as “National High Speed Rail Corporation Limited Vs. Montecarlo Limited and Another, reported in 2022 SCC Online 111, wherein at paras 74, 77 and 78 following has been noticed and referred:- 74. In the case of Afcons Infrastructure Limited V. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Limited (2016) 16 SCC 818 : AIR 2016 SC 4305 , this court in paras 11 to 13 and 15 has observed and held as under: - “11. In the case of Afcons Infrastructure Limited V. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Limited (2016) 16 SCC 818 : AIR 2016 SC 4305 , this court in paras 11 to 13 and 15 has observed and held as under: - “11. Recently, in central Coalfields Ltd. V. SLL-SML (Joint Venture Consortium), (2016) 8 SCC 622 , it was held by this court, relying on a host of decisions that the decision-making process of the employer or owner of the project in accepting or rejecting the bid of a tenderer should not be interfered with. Interference is permissible only if the decision-making process is mala fide or is intended to favour someone. Similarly, the decision should not be interfered with unless the decision is so arbitrary or irrational that the Court could say that the decision is one which no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with law could have reached. In other words, the decision- making process or the decision should be perverse and not merely faulty or incorrect or erroneous. No such extreme case was made out by GYT-TPL JV in the High Court or before us. 12. In Dwarkadas Marfatia and Sons V. port of Bombay, (1989) 3 SCC 293 , it was held that the constitutional courts are concerned with the decision-making process. Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651 went a step further and held that a decision if challenged (the decision having been arrived at through a valid process), the constitutional courts can interfere if the decision is perverse. However, the constitutional courts are expected to exercise restraint in interfering with the administrative decision and ought not to substitute its view for that of the administrative authority. This was confirmed in Jagdish Mandal V. State of Orissa, (2007) 14 SCC 517 , as mentioned in Central Coalfields Ltd. V. SLL-SML (Joint Venture Consortium), (2016) 8 SCC 622 . 13. In other words, a mere disagreement with the decision-making process or the decision of the administrative authority is no reason for a constitutional court to interfere. The threshold of mala fides, intention to favour someone or arbitrariness, irrationality or perversity must be met before the constitutional court interferes with the decision-making process or the decision. 15. 13. In other words, a mere disagreement with the decision-making process or the decision of the administrative authority is no reason for a constitutional court to interfere. The threshold of mala fides, intention to favour someone or arbitrariness, irrationality or perversity must be met before the constitutional court interferes with the decision-making process or the decision. 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.” 77. In the case of the Central Coalfields Limited and Anr. V. SLL-SML [A Joint Venture Consortium] (2016) 8 SCC 622 , it is specifically observed and held by this court that the court must, as far as possible, avoid a construction which would render the words used by the author of the documents meaningless and futile or reduce to silence any part of the document and make it altogether inapplicable. It is further observed that whether a term of NIT is essential or not is a decision taken by the employer, which should be respected and soundness of that decision cannot be questioned by court. 78. In the case of Maa Binda Express Carrier and Anr. V. North Eastern Frontier Railway, (2014) 3 SCC 760 , this court had an occasion to consider the scope of judicial review in the matters relating to award of contracts by the State and its instrumentalities. In paras 8 to 10 this court has observed and held as under: “8. The scope of judicial review in matters relating to award of contracts by the State and its instrumentalities is settled by a long line of decisions of this court. In paras 8 to 10 this court has observed and held as under: “8. The scope of judicial review in matters relating to award of contracts by the State and its instrumentalities is settled by a long line of decisions of this court. While these decisions clearly recognize that power exercised by the Government and its instrumentalities in regard to allotment of contract is subject to judicial review at the instance of an aggrieved party, submission of a tender in response to a notice inviting such tenders is no more than making an offer which the State or its agencies are under no obligation to accept. The bidders participating in the tender process cannot, therefore, insist that their tender should be accepted simply because a given tender is the highest or lowest depending upon whether the contract is for sale or public property or for execution of works on behalf of the Government. All that participating bidders are entitled to, is a fair, equal and non-discriminatory treatment in the matter of evaluation of their tenders. It is also fairly well settled that award of a contract is essentially a commercial transaction which must be determined on the basis of consideration that are relevant to such commercial decision. This implies that terms subject to which tenders are invited are not open to the judicial scrutiny unless it is found that the same have been tailor-made to benefit any particular tenderer or class of tenderers. So also, the authority inviting tenders can enter into negotiations or grant relaxation for bona fide and cogent reasons provided such relaxation is permissible under the terms governing the tender process. 9. Suffice it to say that in the matter of award of contracts the Government and its agencies have to act reasonably and fairly at all pints of time. To that extent the tenderer has an enforceable right in the court which is competent to examine whether the aggrieved party has been treated unfairly or discriminated against to the detriment of public interest (See Meerut Development Authority V. Assn., of Management Studies [ (2009) 6 SCC 171 ] and Air India Ltd. V. Cochin International Airport Ltd. [ (2000) 2 SCC 617 ]. 10. 10. The scope of judicial review in contractual matters was further examined by this Court in Tata Cellular V. Union of India, Raunaq International Ltd., case [Raunaq International Ltd. V. I.V.R. Construction Ltd., (1999) 1 SCC 492 ] 1 SCC 492] and in Jagdish Mandal V. State of Orissa besides several other decisions to which we need not refer.” 6. Keeping in mind the aforesaid principles of law laid down by the Apex court, the issues involved in the instant petition may be adverted to here under; 7. The first issue raised by the petitioner is that respondent No. 1 wrongfully and arbitrarily and with malafide intentions awarded the contract in question to the respondent No. 3 despite the bid of the respondent No. 3 being non-responsive besides being L-2 against the petitioner being L-1 having been declared as such by the respondent No. 1 upon opening of the financial bids. The aforesaid issue, raised by the petitioner, however, does not match either with the record produced by the respondents or else the response filed by the official respondents. It is specific stand of the official respondents that after the submission of bids by the bidders the technical evaluation of the documents was conducted by the Technical Evaluation Committee and the list of qualifying bidders was prepared and after holding a meeting on 31.10.2020 the committee decided to call the qualified bidders to demonstrate the equipment before technical experts in terms of the meeting held on 31.01.2019 which minutes of the meeting are annexed with the reply as Anenxure-R1 stated to have only reflected the names of the qualified bidders and was not a final list as the final bidder was to be selected after examination of the technical as well as the financial bid and that the respondent No. 3 was found to be the lowest bidder entitled to the award of the contract in question. Thus, contention of the petitioner that he was L-1 and that respondent No. 3 as L-2 seemingly is misconceived and factually incorrect and thus not sustainable. 8. The next contention of the petitioner that in terms of Clause 14 of the Technical Specifications, the bid of respondent No. 3 did not provide the quote for the consumables and accessories and thus, was required to be rejected. 8. The next contention of the petitioner that in terms of Clause 14 of the Technical Specifications, the bid of respondent No. 3 did not provide the quote for the consumables and accessories and thus, was required to be rejected. In response to the said contention of the petitioner, respondents have in specific terms stated in their response that in terms of the NIT the overall cost had to be worked out on the basis of rates quoted for all the three items i.e. Main item/Machinery, Accessories/Consumables and Comprehensive Mandatory Contract (CMC) and that respondent No. 3 included the accessories/consumables item with the main item with no separate quote and on the basis of cumulative rates of the main item, consumable/accessories and CMC total cost of equipment was evaluated whereupon the bid of the petitioner was found to be higher than the bid of the respondent No. 3. The said evaluation had been undertaken by the Expert Committee which upon evaluation had found that respondent No. 3 did not charge separately for accessories/consumables as there was no such requirement for providing a separate quote for the same as the cost for main item Sterilizer included within it the cost of accessories/consumables also. The said consideration and evaluation in the light of the principles of law supra laid down by the Apex court in the judgement supra by an expert committee cannot be found fault with more so in absence of a substantial plea of malafide supported by any substantial material thereto. This issue raised by the petitioner as well is found to be without any merit. 9. The next contention of the petitioner that the bid of respondent No. 3 was non-responsive, in that, the respondent No. 3 had not submitted information/document pertaining to its qualification for bidding but instead had provided documents of the original manufacturer of M/s Johnson and Johnson Pvt. Ltd without there being a declaration in terms of Clause 8. The said contention of the petitioner being factual in nature and character has been responded by the official as well as private respondent while stating that the respondent No. 3 submitted its bid as an authorized representative of the importer/manufacturer of M/s. Johnson and Johnson Pvt. Ltd. The said stand of the respondents cannot be disbelieved more so in absence and any proof or material in rebuttal thereto produced by the petitioner. The said contention of the petitioner cannot said to be potent enough for dislodging the claim of the respondent No. 3. Moreover this court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 in tender matters in the light of the principles laid down by the Apex court in the judgement supra cannot display indulgence merely on the ground that decision making process undertaken by the official respondents has been faulty or incorrect or erroneous. 10. The next contention raised by the petitioner that respondent No. 3 had neither an average annual turnover of Rs. 5 crores in the last 3 years nor had it provided any document thereto with the bid in terms of table 1 of the technical specifications but had instead submitted the average annual turnover of M/s Johnson and Johnson Pvt. Ltd also becomes irrelevant and insignificant in view of the stand taken by the respondents that respondent No. 3 submitted its tender as authorized representative of importer/manufacturer of M/s Johnson and Johnson Pvt. Ltd had consequently submitted the average annual turnover of the said importer/manufacturer as per the technical specifications and was not required to submit its own average annual turnover. 11. The next contention of the petitioner is that in terms of clause 2.7 GCC, bidders were not permitted to upload the quote rates in the technical bid and if done would render the bid liable to be out rightly rejected. In view of the response submitted by the respondents this contention of the petitioner cannot said to be an issue warranting interference by this court in the light of the principle of law laid down by the Apex court in the judgement supra, in that, in the judgement supra it has been provided that the constitutional courts must defer appreciation on tender documents unless there is malafide or perversity in the understanding or appreciation or in the application of the terms of the tender conditions and that 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. This contention of the petitioner as well, therefore, does not merit acceptance or call for interference by this court in exercise of extra ordinary writ jurisdiction. 12. This contention of the petitioner as well, therefore, does not merit acceptance or call for interference by this court in exercise of extra ordinary writ jurisdiction. 12. The last contention of the petitioner that the action of the respondent No. 1 in awarding the contract to respondent No. 3 instead to the petitioner caused loss of opportunity to the petitioner besides burdening the exchequer also seemingly is misconceived in view of the stand taken by the official respondents that the bid amount of respondent No. 3 was lower than that of the petitioner and that the public exchequer is not burdened while allotting the contract to the respondent No. 3 being L-1. Furthermore the other contentions urged by the petitioner in the petition are also answered on the legal premise that every decision of the administrative authority which may not appear plausible to the court cannot, for that reason alone, be called arbitrary or whimsical. This court thus cannot substitute its own view as against the view of the tender inviting authority as same will be beyond the ambit and scope of the jurisdiction of this court more particularly in view of the principles of law supra laid down by the Apex court in the judgement supra. 13. For all what has been discussed, analyzed, considered hereinabove, the instant petition is liable to be dismissed, as such, same is accordingly dismissed along with all connected applications. 14. Record of the case be returned back to learned counsel for the official respondents.