JUDGMENT : (M. A. Chowdhary, J.) 1. Through the medium of this Letters Patent Appeal, the judgment dated 27.05.2022 (for short ‘impugned judgment’) passed by the learned Writ Court in WP(C) No.769/2022 titled Syed Abrar Ashraf Andrabi Vs. Union Territory of J&K & Ors. 2. Vide impugned judgment, Writ Court allowed the petition filed by the respondent herein and the order impugned therein dated 30.03.2022 passed by the Director Sheep Husbandry Kashmir, was quashed with the direction to the appellant herein to make payment to the petitioner therein on account of supply of Perennial Rye variety Makhan grass or Punjab grass (Truthfully Labeled) in terms of the supply orders dated 21.02.2022 and 07.03.2022 within a period of two months from the date copy of the order was served upon them, with further stipulation that in case the amount is not paid same shall be payable along-with simple interest @ 9% per annum, and on making the payment to the petitioner therein for the supplies already made, respondents can go ahead with fresh tenders. 3. The impugned judgment dated 27.05.2022 passed by the Writ Court, has been assailed on the following grounds:- i) The impugned order/Judgment passed by the Ld. Single Judge is contrary to law and facts, as such, deserves to be set aside. ii) The impugned Judgment has been passed by the Hon’ble Writ Court without considering the objections of the Appellants in its right perspective, wherein the correct regulatory position was brought to the notice of the Hon’ble Writ Court. iii) The writ Petitioners (Respondent herein) being the successful bidder who had quoted rate of Rs. 399 per Kg for Certified Perennial Rye Seed and being Single Tenderer, it was approved by Administrative Department also for certified Perennial Rye Seed. However, after receipt of the Rye Seed consignment, it was examined by the Departmental Verification Committee, who reported that the seed is truthfully labeled instead of Certified Seed and accordingly the consignment of Rye Seed which was found not in consonance with NIT/Supply order was rejected by the Appellant No. 2 in terms of the impugned order. However, after receipt of the Rye Seed consignment, it was examined by the Departmental Verification Committee, who reported that the seed is truthfully labeled instead of Certified Seed and accordingly the consignment of Rye Seed which was found not in consonance with NIT/Supply order was rejected by the Appellant No. 2 in terms of the impugned order. iv) That since the supply was not found in consonance with the e/NIT, rate contract and the bill of quantity submitted by the supplier himself at the time of furnishing the bid i.e. Certified seed, the matter was taken up with the Administrative department for guidance, who directed the department to proceed in the instant issue in accordance with the procedures laid down in the General Financial Rules 2017 and Manual for Procurement of Goods 2017. In order to ensure transparency, competition, fairness and elimination of arbitrariness in the procurement process as envisaged in Rule 173 of GFR, the supplier was asked to lift back the supplies. The acceptance of the supplies could have led to a vitiation of the original tender decision and bestowed an undue advantage to the contractor as against Rule 9.2 of Manual for Procurement of Goods. On this count also, the impugned judgment is bad in law and deserves to be set aside. v) It is settled position of law that if the decision to NIT/award of contract is bonafide and is in public interest, courts will not in exercise of power of judicial review, interfere even if a procedural aberration or error in assessment or prejudice to a tenderer is made out. The power of judicial review will not be permitted to be invoked to protect private interest at the cost of public interest or to decide contractual disputes. vi) The impugned order being ex-facie contrary to law and the facts and circumstances of the case, need to be set aside. vii) That the Department of Law, Justice & Parliamentary Affairs has accorded sanction to the filing of LPA against impugned judgment. 4. Heard and considered. 5. Mr. vi) The impugned order being ex-facie contrary to law and the facts and circumstances of the case, need to be set aside. vii) That the Department of Law, Justice & Parliamentary Affairs has accorded sanction to the filing of LPA against impugned judgment. 4. Heard and considered. 5. Mr. Usman Gani, GA, learned counsel for the appellants, argued that the appellants had floated the e-NIT No. DSHK/Supply/NIT/2021- 22/14233-51 dated 07.01.2022 for supply of Certified Perennial Rye (Makhan grass or Punjab grass) and the respondent having been qualified as a single responsive bidder in the aforesaid e-NIT, the matter regarding approval for the single responsive bid was taken up with the Administrative Department. In response to the same, Administrative Department conveyed its approval to enter the rate contract with the single responsive bidder in respect of the Certified Perennial Rye (Makhan grass or Punjab grass); that the appellant department entered into the rate contract for supply of Certified Perennial Rye (Makhan grass or Punjab grass) with M/S Abisha (respondent herein) vide No. DSHK/Acctts/2021-22/15806-12 and placed the supply order of Certified Perennial Rye (Makhan grass or Punjab grass) vide No.DSHK/Supply/2021-22/Seed/35/15883-88 dated 21.02.2022 and No. DSHK/Supply/2021-22/Seed/35/16335-40 dated 07.03.2022, however, the specification mentioned in the above supply orders inadvertently shown as Certified or Truthfully Labeled (T.L) but in the same supply orders in the terms and conditions at point No.4 it was clearly mentioned that all the terms and conditions laid down in the e-NIT and the rate contract shall form the integral part of the supply orders. Learned counsel further argued that the respondent herein i.e. M/S Abisha supplied the Perennial Rye (Makhan grass or Punjab grass) on 25.03.2022 and subsequently the supply was verified by the Verification Committee of the appellant department and was found to be Truthfully Labeled Seed instead of Certified Seed (for which the supplier had consented at the time of participating in the tender) as per the entry recorded on the bill furnished by the supplier. 6. 6. He would further argue that the supply having been found not in consonance with e-NIT, rate contract and the bill of the quantity submitted by the supplier himself at the time of furnishing the bid i.e. Certified Seed, the matter was taken up with the Administrative Department for guidance, who directed the Department to proceed in the instant issue in accordance with the procedure laid down in the General Financial Rules 2017 and Manual for Procurement of Goods 2017. He further argued that in compliance to the instructions (supra) and in order to ensure transparency, competence, fairness and elimination of arbitrariness in the procurement process as envisaged in Rule 173 of General Financial Rules (GFR), the supplier was asked to lift back the supplies vide appellant’s letter No. DSHK-ACCT/62/14962 dated 30.03.2022. Further acceptance of the supplies could have led to contravention of the original tender decision and bestowed an undue advantage to the supplier as against Rule 9.2 of Manual for Procurement of Goods. 7. Learned GA also argued that the appellant department decided to invite fresh tenders for supply of Perennial Rye in view of the fact that since the Certified Seed for the Perennial Rye is not available in the market as also verified from the Agriculture Department and National Seed Corporation Ltd. and having regard to the restrictive competition for procurement in the initial phase, which is evident from the fact that single responsive bid was received from the same supplier (M/S Abisha) only. The appellant department accordingly, on the recommendations of the National Seed Corporation Ltd. and the Department of Agriculture Kashmir, once again invited the tenders for procurement of Perennial Rye Grass vide e-NIT No.DSHK/Supply/NIT/2022-23/392-401 dated 09.04.2022 and that anyone including M/S Abisha-respondent herein could participate in this open tender process. However, the tender could not be opened owing to the fact that again single tenderer is the respondent only and it was mandatory to re-tender. The process, however, could not be forwarded because of the directions of payment to the respondent. 8. Learned GA has further argued that the learned Writ Court in the Writ Petition filed by the respondent herein allowed his plea without considering the objections filed by the appellant herein, overlooking the supply of Truthfully Labeled Seed instead of Certified Perennial Rye Seed. 9. Mr. 8. Learned GA has further argued that the learned Writ Court in the Writ Petition filed by the respondent herein allowed his plea without considering the objections filed by the appellant herein, overlooking the supply of Truthfully Labeled Seed instead of Certified Perennial Rye Seed. 9. Mr. G.A.Lone, learned counsel for the respondent, ex-adverso, argued that after seeking clarification from the Department of Agriculture as also National Seed Corporation Ltd., the appellants had no reason or justification to deny the legitimate payment to the respondent. He has further argued that in view of the supply order issued to the respondent by the appellants and having received the consignment, it was not available to them to reject this supply at later date and to deny the payment to the respondent. He has argued that the Writ Court has decided the Writ Petition filed by the respondent herein, in accordance with law and the impugned judgment dies not suffer from any illegality so as to warrant interference by the Division Bench in this LPA. He prayed fro dismissal of the appeal. 10. The appellant department had raised tender, for the Firm/Company dealing with the Fodder Seeds in two bid system (Technical 1 and Financial 2) for fixing rate contract for supply of Fodder Seeds, which include Perennial Rye Seeds. The respondent-Firm herein participated in the process and submitted its bid for supply of the requisite seeds including Seed Perennial Rye, (Makhan grass or Punjab grass) variety as prescribed in the NIT, whose bid was accepted inter alia for the supply of Maize, Perennial Rye Seed of Makhan grass variety Truthfully Labeled (for short T/L) in 1 kg packages amounting to the quantity of 100 quintals at the rate of Rs.39,900/- per quintal. Pursuant to the supply order issued by appellant No.3 vide his No. DSHK/Supply/2021-22/Seed/35/15883-88 dated 21.02.2022, the respondent made the supplies of Maize and Perennial Rye Seeds as per the supply order. 11. The appellant-department on further requirement of Perennial Rye Seeds placed another supply order bearing No.DSHK/Supply/2021- 22/Seed/35/16335-40 dated 07.03.2022 for 70 quintals of Perennial Rye Seeds at the accepted rate of Rs. 39,900/- per quintal. 12. 11. The appellant-department on further requirement of Perennial Rye Seeds placed another supply order bearing No.DSHK/Supply/2021- 22/Seed/35/16335-40 dated 07.03.2022 for 70 quintals of Perennial Rye Seeds at the accepted rate of Rs. 39,900/- per quintal. 12. Respondent herein, before the Writ Court claimed to have supplied 170 quintals of Perennial Rye Seeds (Truthfully Labeled), whose quality was duly verified and the same was found in accordance with the sample prescribed earlier with a requisite entry made in this regard in the department register. Respondent, after complying with the supply orders, raised the bill for Rs.39.90 lac against the supply of 100 quintals of Perennial Rye Seeds (Makhan grass T/L) and also raised another bill of Rs.27.93 lac on account of supply of additional 70 quintals of seed. Both the supplies were duly recorded in the records of the appellant-department. 13. The appellants, after receipt of the supplies of grass seeds from the respondent herein, took up the matter with the Area Manager, National Seeds Corporation Ltd. Jalandhar, for seeking clarification with regard to quality certification of Perennial Rye Seeds. As per the communication dated 26.03.2022, it transpires that the appellants wanted to know the difference between the Perennial Rye Seeds (Certified) and the Perennial Rye Seeds (Truthfully Labeled). In response to the communication, the Corporation vide its communication dated 28.03.2022 informed appellant No.4 that the Certified Seeds of Perennial Rye is neither produced by National Seeds Corporation, Ltd, nor by any private/other agency, because there is no seed standard available for Rye grass as per the Indian Minimum Seeds Certification Standards 2013. After seeking clarification from the National Seeds Corporation Ltd., appellant No.3 also sought the same clarification from Department of Agriculture and the Chief Technical Officer of Directorate of Agriculture Kashmir, vide his communication dated 28.03.2022 informed the appellants that no seed standards are available for Rye grass as per the Indian Minimum Seeds Certification Standards 2013 and therefore, the item Rye grass does not fall within the ambit of such certification. 14. Respondents were permitted by the Writ Court to go ahead with the fresh tender with further condition not to finalize the same. However, the Court was informed that the appellants have decided to float the fresh tenders for the reason that only one bid had been found responsive. 15. 14. Respondents were permitted by the Writ Court to go ahead with the fresh tender with further condition not to finalize the same. However, the Court was informed that the appellants have decided to float the fresh tenders for the reason that only one bid had been found responsive. 15. Learned Writ Court noticed that e-NIT dated 03.11.2021 was issued by appellant No.2 for procuring Oats, Maize and Perennial Rye Seeds, which clearly mentioned the class of Rye Seed as “Certified”, however, as per Clause-13.2 of the tender notice, the appellant No.2 was entitled to incorporate in the supply order any condition that is not indicated in the NIT. The bid of the respondent herein for supply of Maize and Perennial Rye Seeds was accepted by the appellants and consequent on the acceptance of the bids, supply order bearing No.DSHK/Supply/2021-22/Seed/35/15883-88 dated 21.02.2022 was issued to the respondent herein giving him option to supply Perennial Rye variety Makhan grass (Certified or T/L). On verification from the National Seed Corporation and Directorate of Agriculture Kashmir, it was found that no seed standards are available for Rye grass as per the Indian Minimum Seeds Certification Standards 2013. 16. Learned Writ Court on this admitted position was of the view that there was inherent flaw in the e-NIT issued by appellant No.2 on 03.11.2021 and the appellants who were aware of this flaw covered up the same when they issued the supply orders dated 21.02.2022 and 07.03.2022 to the respondent herein giving him the option to supply Perennial Rye Seeds (Certified or T/L). Respondent herein, in compliance to the said supply order issued by the appellants, supplied Truthfully Labeled (T/L) Perennial Rye Seeds and complied with the supply orders. It was not the case of the appellants that the supplies made by the respondent herein have been found defective or sub-standard and the only reason assigned to reject supplies and the supply order actually made by the respondent are not in consonance with the tender notice, which required Perennial Rye (Certified) to be supplied by the respondent herein. 17. Respondent herein, as per the supply orders dated 21.02.2022 and 07.03.2022, supplied the Perennial Rye Seeds (Truthfully Labeled) in strict sense of the supply orders. The appellants cannot say that the supply of the Perennial Rye Seeds made by the respondent was in violation of any terms and conditions of the supply order. 17. Respondent herein, as per the supply orders dated 21.02.2022 and 07.03.2022, supplied the Perennial Rye Seeds (Truthfully Labeled) in strict sense of the supply orders. The appellants cannot say that the supply of the Perennial Rye Seeds made by the respondent was in violation of any terms and conditions of the supply order. Though the Certified variety of Makhan grass or Punjab grass was required to be supplied in terms of e-NIT dated 03.11.2021 but the respondent having come to know that this variety was not available on the certification of National Seed Corporation and the Directorate of Agriculture Kashmir, probably invoked Clause 13.2 to the General Instructions appended with NIT and issued the supply orders requiring the respondent to supply either Certified or Truthfully Labeled variety of Perennial Rye Seeds. The respondent made the supplies as per the supply orders. 18. Learned Writ Court having regard to the supplies made by the respondent as per the supply order issued by the appellants, rightly and legally held the appellants are bound by their representation/commitment, acting upon which the appellants had changed their position to their detriment, by invoking the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel, order dated 30.03.2022 rejecting the supplies made by the respondent, was held to be bad in the eyes of law. 19. The appellants having raised the tender notice for Certified Rye Seeds had themselves waived the condition of Certified Seeds through the supply orders with easing of the condition in terms of Clause 13.2 of the tender notice for supply of Certified/Truthfully Labeled Rye seeds. The supplies made by the respondent herein, in compliance to the supply orders cannot be rejected on the principle of estoppel. Therefore, the learned Writ Court has taken a correct and legally sustainable view which cannot be interfered with by this Court in the appeal for the aforesaid reasons. Resultantly, the impugned judgment is upheld. 20. The appeal is found without any merit and substance, as such, is dismissed along-with pending application(s), if any.