ORDER : Ananda Sen, J. 1. By filing this writ petition, petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs : (a) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction restraining the Respondent No.2 from cancelling the tender bearing no.E-Tender UDD/NPG/01/2022-23 (ANNEXURE 1) and the work orders bearing no. 867 and 868 dated 29.08.2022 issued to the Petitioner (ANNEXURE 3) pursuant to being selected as the successful bidder thereunder; (b) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and/or setting aside the tender bearing No.E-Tender UDD/NPG/12/2022-23 dated 18.10.2022 (ANNEXURE 7) and restraining the Respondent No.2 from taking any steps in furtherance of the same, including without limitation awarding the works earlier awarded to the Petitioner under the tender bearing No.E-Tender UDD/NPG/01/2022-23 (ANNEXURE 1); (c) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondent No.2 to keep in abeyance the new tendering process initiated by way of tender bearing No.E-Tender UDD/NPG/12/2022-23 dated 18.10.2022 (ANNEXURE 7); 2. On 06.09.2023, an interim order was passed to the effect that no third party interest will be created in the work, which is subject matter of this writ petition. 3. After hearing the counsel for the parties, we have also gone through the records. 4. The facts lie in a very narrow compass and are admitted by the parties. Tender was issued by the respondent No.2 on 26.04.2022. The work was in respect of construction of PCC Road and RCC Drain with pre-cast slabs and paver blocks. The petitioner, a proprietorship firm, participated in the tender process and submitted the technical and financial bid for construction of PCC Road and RCC Drain with pre-cast slabs in Ward Nos.8 and 9 and also in Ward Nos.5, 11 and 12. The work in relation to Ward Nos.8 and 9 were covered under Package 6 and the work in relation to Ward Nos.5, 11 and 12 were covered under Package 7. The Committee evaluated the bid submitted by various bidders and the petitioner and ultimately on 19.07.2022, technical bid and financial bid was approved. Petitioner and the respondent No.2 entered into two separate agreements, both dated 30.07.2022. For the two works, two separate work orders were issued in favour of the petitioner, being Work Order Nos. 867 and 868, both dated 29.08.2022. Petitioner was called upon to commence construction work and to complete the same within a period of six months. Petitioner and the respondent No.2 entered into two separate agreements, both dated 30.07.2022. For the two works, two separate work orders were issued in favour of the petitioner, being Work Order Nos. 867 and 868, both dated 29.08.2022. Petitioner was called upon to commence construction work and to complete the same within a period of six months. Work was for a short term. The works were inaugurated on 01.09.2022 and 02.09.2022. Be it noted that the security money was also deposited. Suddenly on 07.09.2022, respondent No.2 directed the petitioner to stop further construction work covered under the aforesaid tender. No grounds were mentioned as to why work was directed to be stopped. Petitioner along with others were called upon to appear before a Committee on 12.09.2022 at 03.00 PM for verification of the original documents submitted with their bid. Petitioner appeared and submitted all the documents. Suddenly on 18.10.2022, a separate tender was issued in respect of the same work, which was allotted to the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents, in a most arbitrary manner, issued fresh tender. Issuing fresh tender means and implies cancelling the work of the petitioner, in utter violation of the principles of natural justice as no ground as to why the work has been stopped and fresh tender has been issued was any where been intimated. On this background, the petitioner has challenged the action of the respondents by which the work of the petitioner was stopped and she also challenged issuance of fresh tender in respect of the same work, which was issued to the petitioner. 5. The State filed a counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, they have annexed letter No. 1224/Ra. issued by the Additional Collector, Godda addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Godda, wherein irregularities in respect of each of the tenderers were highlighted. As per the counter affidavit, since there were serious lapses on the part of the petitioner in getting the tender, it was decided to cancel the agreement and re-tender the work. 6. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that, admittedly the work orders were issued to the petitioner and agreements were also entered between the petitioner and the respondent No.2. 6. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that, admittedly the work orders were issued to the petitioner and agreements were also entered between the petitioner and the respondent No.2. On the basis of some vague allegation made by some person, respondents, in a mechanical manner have stopped the petitioner from performing her work and thereafter re-tendered the work, which was allotted to the petitioner. He submits that the respondents, by re-tendering the work, has impliedly cancelled the agreement of the petitioner, which is illegal. As per the petitioner, since there was a concluded contract between the petitioner and the respondent No.2, cancellation of the contract in the manner in which it has been done, is absolutely bad and arbitrary in nature. He further argues that the ground for cancelling the work is nonest and is frivolous, which smacks of malice. Counsel for the petitioner submits that hard copy of the Identity Card of the engineer was duly furnished before the authorities. He lastly submits that this writ petition be allowed by setting aside the action of the respondents by which the work of the petitioner was stopped and also setting aside the fresh tender in respect of the same work, which was issued to the petitioner. 7. Counsel for the State argues that several irregularities and illegalities were found in the bid of the petitioner, which were re-examined and a decision was taken to re-tender the work. He submits that the documents of the vehicles and machineries, which the petitioner had produced with the tender document, would suggest that the same do not belong to the petitioner, rather were taken on hire. It is further submitted that the Identity Card of one of the engineers, was not produced along with the bid, thus, a decision was taken to cancel the agreement and re-tender the work. 8. The fact that the work was allotted to the petitioner is not disputed. The sequence of the events have already been projected in paragraph 4 of this order, which are admitted. 9. It is alleged that the tender was wrongly awarded to the petitioner. The allegation against the petitioner is that the tax invoice of JCB and Tipper was annexed with the tender document, but since the RC Book was not attached, the tax invoice was presumed to be forged. 9. It is alleged that the tender was wrongly awarded to the petitioner. The allegation against the petitioner is that the tax invoice of JCB and Tipper was annexed with the tender document, but since the RC Book was not attached, the tax invoice was presumed to be forged. Further allegation is that the petitioner, alongwith the tender documents, has not annexed the Identity Card in respect of one of the engineers. It is the case of the State that inspite of aforesaid shortcomings, the work was awarded to the petitioner. These allegations were inquired into and from the enquiry report, it was found by the respondents that the petitioner had uploaded documents of the machines, but did not annex the registration book. Abhay Kumar Gupta appeared before the Tender Committee, who re-examined the matter (after the work order was issued) and he produced and informed that the JCB and the Tipper are not registered in his name, but have been taken on lease for a year. The Committee also found that the documents of at least 3 machines should be uploaded, which would suggest that the machines were taken on lease or registered in the name of the contractor. It also found that the affidavit was filed showing that the machineries were taken on lease. The committee also found that the tax invoice was annexed, but as per them, those creates a suspicion. The Committee also found that the Identity Card of one of the engineers was not annexed. 10. After going through the findings of the enquiry committee, we find that merely the Committee has concluded that the tax invoice “seems to be suspicious”, but what was the reason to reach at the said conclusion is missing. Merely writing that a document is suspicious will not make the said document questionable in any manner. There should be some element coupled with some reasons to reach at a conclusion that the document is suspicious. There is no reasoning nor any element to suggest as to what was the material or what was the element which makes the document suspicious. Only whimsically out of any context, it has been mentioned that the tax invoice is suspicious. This finding is nothing but an arbitrary and unreasonable finding without backing of any fact. There is no reasoning nor any element to suggest as to what was the material or what was the element which makes the document suspicious. Only whimsically out of any context, it has been mentioned that the tax invoice is suspicious. This finding is nothing but an arbitrary and unreasonable finding without backing of any fact. Be it noted that the petitioner has already deposited tax invoice, which should have easily been verified by the respondents from the authorities concerned, but, admittedly no such exercise was undertaken by the respondents. 11. So far as JCB and Tipper are concerned, admittedly, the same were taken on lease and there is no embargo in taking the said machineries on lease. We find that there is no mandate that the contractor should own those machineries. These machineries can be taken on hire also. Clause 37 of the agreement reads that the tenderer must produce self-attested copies of ownership certificate or lease deed in respect of at least three out of the machineries / vehicles, namely, Dumper, Truck, Tractor, Dozer, Tanker, Pumps, Generator, Concrete Mixture, Hot Mix, Vibrator. From perusal of the said clause, it is clear that lease document or ownership certificate were required. This clause does not provide that the petitioner must be a registered owner of these machineries or vehicles. This clearly provides that the contractor can take even on lease these machineries/ vehicles, but the only condition is that copies of lease deed must be furnished. It is admitted case that lease deeds were duly furnished by the petitioner. 12. So far as the Identity Card of the engineer is concerned, we find that the petitioner claims that he had submitted hard copies of the same. Be that as it may, the same cannot be a ground to set aside the work order of the petitioner. 13. It is true that in contract matters, involving instrumentalities of the State, the judicial intervention should be minimum, but there is no bar in interfering when the action of the State / decision of the State is totally arbitrary and unreasonable. It is true that the Court does not sit in an appeal over the decision of the authorities, but if there is arbitrariness or patent illegality or perversity and malafide, which is writ large and is clear from the documents itself, the Court will definitely interfere. It is true that the Court does not sit in an appeal over the decision of the authorities, but if there is arbitrariness or patent illegality or perversity and malafide, which is writ large and is clear from the documents itself, the Court will definitely interfere. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tata Motors Ltd. Versus The Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply & Transport Undertakings (Best) & Others reported in (2023) SCC OnLine SC 671 while referring to several other decisions of the Supreme Court, has held that the Court being the guardian of fundamental rights, is duty bound to interfere when there is arbitrariness, irregularity and malafide. Though the Court should be loathe to interfere in the contractual matters, but where there is clear cut case of arbitrariness, malafide or bias, the Court will definitely interfere. In the instant case, we find that the action of the respondents is arbitrary, irrational and perverse, which is apparent from our findings arrived at in earlier part of this order. Whimsically on grounds, which are absolutely nonest, the contract of the petitioner has been cancelled and fresh tender for the same work was floated. 14. Considering what has been held above, we are inclined to allow this writ petition. The order contained in letter dated 07.09.2022, by which the petitioner was stopped from performing the contract is hereby set aside and we further quash part of the fresh tender being E-Tender UDD/NPG/12/2022-23 dated 18.10.2022 issued in respect of the work, which was already allotted to the petitioner. This writ petition is, thus, allowed. The work order issued to the petitioner is revived and the respondents are directed to act accordingly. 15. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. 16. There shall be no orders as to costs. Urgent certified copies of this order shall be issued as per the Rules.