JUDGMENT : Ravindra Maithani, J. Since common question of law is involved in both these writ petitions, they are heard together and being decided by this common judgment. 2. The Transport Commissioner, Uttarakhand published an Expression of Interest (“EoI”) on 14.12.2021 for establishment of Automated Testing Station (for short, “the Station”) in Doiwala Region in District Dehradun and nearby places of Rudrapur in District Udham Singh Nagar. It was so done because the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (“the Rules”) were amended in the year 2021 and Chapter XI was added into it. It also added sub-rule (6) to Rule 63 of the Rules, as follows: “(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in this rule, the recognition, regulation and control of automated testing station, for the purposes of section 56 of the Act, shall be as per Chapter XI of these rules. 3. Both the petitioners submitted their EoIs for establishing the Station near Doiwala Region in District Dehradun. The respondent no. 5 (in both the writ petitions) also submitted EoI and he was given work order for establishing the Station in District Dehradun. The respondent no. 6, namely, Pranam Builders Pvt. Ltd. Gomti Nagar (in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1273 of 2022) was awarded work order for establishing the Station within District Udham Singh Nagar by communication dated 15.03.2022. It has been put to challenge in both these petitions. Challenge has also been made to the communication dated 07.04.2022, by which the petitioners’ EoIs have been rejected. The petitioner has also sought related reliefs. FACTS Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1273 of 2022 4. It is the case of the petitioner that the condition of EoI was subsequently changed by the respondent authorities so as to give an opportunity to the respondent no. 5 to meet the eligibility criteria. Initially, the date for submission of EoI was 31.12.2021, but it was further extended till 07.01.2022. Also, initially, according to the EoI, the premises where the automated testing station was to be housed was required to be in possession of the applicant based on any lease or otherwise on 14.12.2021. But, subsequently, it was changed to the effect that the applicant shall have lease of the property where the Station was to be established on the date when the EoI is submitted. 5. It is also the case of the petitioner that in the application filed by the respondent no. But, subsequently, it was changed to the effect that the applicant shall have lease of the property where the Station was to be established on the date when the EoI is submitted. 5. It is also the case of the petitioner that in the application filed by the respondent no. 5, he has not disclosed his Udyam, Adhar Number, PAN and GST Number. Instead, he gave these numbers of some other entities. The respondent no. 5 obtained Udyam Registration Number on 15.01.2022, PAN on 15.01.2022 and GST No. 24.03.2022. It is the case of the petitioner that these numbers were obtained by the respondent no. 5 after 07.01.2022, when he submitted his application for establishing the Station. The respondent no. 5 was not incorporated as an entity till 15.01.2022. In addition to it, it has also been the case of the petitioner that, in fact, the respondent no. 5 did not have the lease of the land initially when he filed application for establishing the Station on 27.12.2021. 6. The challenge is also made to the award of work to the respondent no. 6 within District Udham Singh Nagar on the ground that the lease deed of the respondent no. 6 was not registered on the date when he submitted his application. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent no. 5 and the respondent no. 6 have been awarded the work in contravention of the conditions of EoI. Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1722 of 2022 7. It is the case of the petitioner that initial condition of the EoI was subsequently modified. The date for submission of EoI was extended till 07.01.2022 and registration of lease deed was made mandatory of the land, which, according to the petitioner, was not mentioned earlier as an eligibility criteria in the EoI dated 14.12.2021. Thereafter, the respondent no. 5 was given one more chance to amend the application so that he could fulfill the modified condition. It the case of the petitioner that the respondent authorities were hand in glove with the respondent no. 5 and the tender proceedings were merely an eyewash to show that certain procedure was followed. Accordingly, challenge was made to the communication dated 15.03.2022, by which the respondent no. 5 was awarded the work to establish Station within District Dehradun. There are other related reliefs in the petition. 8. 5 and the tender proceedings were merely an eyewash to show that certain procedure was followed. Accordingly, challenge was made to the communication dated 15.03.2022, by which the respondent no. 5 was awarded the work to establish Station within District Dehradun. There are other related reliefs in the petition. 8. In both the petitions, it has been the case of State that after the initial publication of EoI on 14.12.2021, certain modifications were done on 31.12.2021, by which the last date for submission of application form was extended till 07.01.2022 and Condition 3(g) of the Advertisement dated 14.12.2021 was amended to the extent that the premises where the Station was to be set up should be either owned by the applicant or taken on lease or rent for a period not less than 10 years as on the date of submission of the application form. According to the State, the Five-Members Evaluation Committee evaluated the proposals received and has also sought the advice of International Centre for Automative Technology (“ICAT”), Manesar. On the basis of the advice and after evaluation of the proposals in its meeting dated 04.12.2022, a decision was taken. It is the case of the respondent State that the petitioners have not submitted the registered lease deed or proof of any application with prescribed fees before the concerned Sub- Registrar for registering the lease deed, therefore, they were declared unsuccessful by the Evaluation Committee. 9. It the case of the respondent no. 5 that the application was filed as a consortium of two components and it was specifically mentioned in “Status” Column at Form 63 itself and, in fact, separate details of both the components were given. After constituting the consortium in the name of the respondent no. 5, Udyam, PAN and GST number were subsequently taken. It is further the case of the respondent no. 5 that the petitioners also participated in the process and after being unsuccessful now, they are alleging mala fide without any basis, whatsoever. It is not the case of anyone that the extension was granted in favour of a chosen few and it was limited only in respect of certain category of applicants or they are stating equals as unequals. There is no principle of inference of mala fides only on the ground that the last date of submission of forms has been extended. According to the respondent no. There is no principle of inference of mala fides only on the ground that the last date of submission of forms has been extended. According to the respondent no. 5, their lease deed was registered on 3.1.2022 before the last date of submission of application form. 10. According to the respondent no. 6, the petitioners did not participate in the tender for setting up the Station at District Udham Singh Nagar. Therefore, they may not be aggrieved by the allotment of the same to the respondent no. 6. It is the case of the respondent no. 6 that he had already submitted the copy of registered lease deed on 29.12.2021. ARGUMENTS 11. Mr. M.C. Pant, learned counsel for the petitioner M/s Advitya Techno Solution Pvt. Ltd., would submit that the EoI was amended so as to give an opportunity to the respondent no. 5 to meet the eligibility criteria. It is argued that the initial application of the respondent no. 5 does not contain the PAN, GST Number and Udyam Adhar Number. Learned counsel would also raise the following points in his submission:- (i) In the application of the respondent no. 5 for establishing the Station, the PAN, Udyam Number and GST Number of previous years have been given, whereas the respondent no. 5 did obtain GST registration on 24.03.2022, PAN on 15.01.2022 and Udyam Adhar Number on 15.01.2022. Therefore, it is argued that the application of the respondent no. 5 was not based on correct particulars. The respondent no. 5 was not incorporated till 15.01.2022. (ii) The condition of eligibility as given in the EoI dated 14.12.2021 was modified and it was provided that the applicant shall have lease deed on the date when he submits his application form. Initially, it was the requirement that the applicant shall have possession of the land on 14.12.2021. It is argued that the respondent no. 5 did not have registered lease deed on the date when he filed his application on 27.12.2021. (iii) The Bank Draft submitted by the respondent no. 5 was invalid, which has been recorded in the minutes dated 04.02.2022 of the meeting chaired by the Deputy Transport Commissioner, Uttarakhand. 12. Learned counsel would submit that despite these anomalies and deficiencies, the respondent no. 5 was awarded work order for establishing the Station. It has also been argued that the lease deed of the respondent no. 5 was invalid, which has been recorded in the minutes dated 04.02.2022 of the meeting chaired by the Deputy Transport Commissioner, Uttarakhand. 12. Learned counsel would submit that despite these anomalies and deficiencies, the respondent no. 5 was awarded work order for establishing the Station. It has also been argued that the lease deed of the respondent no. 6 was not registered on the date when he filed his application. Therefore, the award of work for establishing the Station within District Udham Singh Nagar to the respondent no. 6 is also bad in the eyes of law. 13. Mr. Shailabh Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner S.Y. Vehicle Testing Services, Doiwala, Dehradun, would submit that the eligibility criteria was modified so as to enable the respondent no. 5 to obtain work order. It is argued that the respondent no. 5 was given a second chance to submit his application on 07.01.2022 so that he may file lease deed along with it. 14. It may be noted that, in fact, in para 12 of the writ petition, the petitioner SY Vehicle Testing Services, Doiwala, Dehradun has stated that by modification, the registration of lease deed was made mandatory, which was not mentioned in the eligibility criteria. In fact, it was not so modified. What was modified was that the applicant shall have possession of the land as lease holder on the date when he submits his application. According to the earlier condition, the applicant was required to hold the premises on lease or otherwise on the date of publication of EoI i.e. on 14.12.2021. 15. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 would submit that pursuant to the amendment in the Rules, Chapter XI has been added, which makes automated testing of the vehicles mandatory w.e.f 01.04.2023. He would refer to Rule 174, 175 and 176 of the Rules to argue that the EoI was issued pursuant to these Rules. 16. It is submitted that there has been no irregularity in the award of work to the respondent no. 5. Learned counsel has raised the following points in his submissions:- (i) The modification in the conditions of EoI made on 31.12.2021 and the date of submission of application was extended for one and all. (ii) The petitioners in both the writ petitions have not claimed that they are successful. (iii) It is not the process of tender, as such. 5. Learned counsel has raised the following points in his submissions:- (i) The modification in the conditions of EoI made on 31.12.2021 and the date of submission of application was extended for one and all. (ii) The petitioners in both the writ petitions have not claimed that they are successful. (iii) It is not the process of tender, as such. (iv) The testing stations are to be established at various places so as to fulfill the legislative mandate of automated testing. (v) The respondent no. 5 is a consortium of two entities, namely M/S Sai Dham Super Services Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Star Automative Pvt. Ltd. In the application, the details with regard to Udyam Number, PAN and GST Number of both these components have been given. It makes no difference that the PAN, GST Number of the respondent no. 5 was subsequently procured. (vi) The EoI permits consortium to submit the application. 17. It is argued that the process has been reasonable. There is no arbitrariness and mala fide. Hence, there is no reason to make any interference in the writ petitions. 18. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 6 would submit that the petitioners did not participate for establishing Station in District Udham Singh Nagar. It is argued that, in fact, according to the documents filed by the writ petitioner in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1273 of 2022, the lease deed executed in favour of the respondent no. 6 had already been registered on 29.12.2021. Therefore, the claim of the petitioners has no merits for acceptance. 19. Learned counsel for the State of Uttarakhand would submits that after scrutiny, the work order has been awarded, which is in accordance with the Rules. Learned counsel would submit that the process has been entirely transparent. After receipt of the applications, they were scrutinized. The State Government has taken advice of the ICAT, Manesar before finalizing the process. The respondents had given certain queries to ICAT, which was replied by the ICAT on 23.01.2022. Thereafter, scrutiny was done and work was awarded to the respondent no. 5 and respondent no. 6 for establishing the Station within District Dehradun and Udham Singh Nagar, respectively. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 20. An administrative action is put to challenge on certain grounds. Basically, what is being argued is that the initial EoI was modified so as to help the respondent no. 5 and respondent no. 6 for establishing the Station within District Dehradun and Udham Singh Nagar, respectively. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 20. An administrative action is put to challenge on certain grounds. Basically, what is being argued is that the initial EoI was modified so as to help the respondent no. 5 in meeting the eligibility criteria. Judicial review of an administrative action can be done on certain parameters. 21. In the case of Tata Celluler v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed the scope of judicial review and observed as hereunder:- “77. The duty of the court is to confine itself to the question of legality. Its concern should be: 1. Whether a decision-making authority exceeded its powers? 2. Committed an error of law, 3. committed a breach of the rules of natural justice, 4. reached a decision which no reasonable tribunal would have reached or, 5. abused its powers. Therefore, it is not for the court to determine whether a particular policy or particular decision taken in the fulfilment of that policy is fair. It is only concerned with the manner in which those decisions have been taken. The extent of the duty to act fairly will vary from case to case. Shortly put, the grounds upon which an administrative action is subject to control by judicial review can be classified as under: (i) Illegality : This means the decision- maker must understand correctly the law that regulates his decision-making power and must give effect to it. (ii) Irrationality, namely, Wednesbury unreasonableness. (iii) Procedural impropriety. The above are only the broad grounds but it does not rule out addition of further grounds in course of time. As a matter of fact, in R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex Brind [(1991) 1 AC 696], Lord Diplock refers specifically to one development, namely, the possible recognition of the principle of proportionality. In all these cases the test to be adopted is that the court should, “consider whether something has gone wrong of a nature and degree which requires its intervention”. 78. What is this charming principle of Wednesbury unreasonableness? Is it a magical formula? In R. v. Askew [(1768) 4 Burr 2186 : 98 ER 139], Lord Mansfield considered the question whether mandamus should be granted against the College of Physicians. He expressed the relevant principles in two eloquent sentences. 78. What is this charming principle of Wednesbury unreasonableness? Is it a magical formula? In R. v. Askew [(1768) 4 Burr 2186 : 98 ER 139], Lord Mansfield considered the question whether mandamus should be granted against the College of Physicians. He expressed the relevant principles in two eloquent sentences. They gained greater value two centuries later: “It is true, that the judgment and discretion of determining upon this skill, ability, learning and sufficiency to exercise and practise this profession is trusted to the College of Physicians and this Court will not take it from them, nor interrupt them in the due and proper exercise of it. But their conduct in the exercise of this trust thus committed to them ought to be fair, candid and unprejudiced; not arbitrary, capricious, or biased; much less, warped by resentment, or personal dislike.” 80. At this stage, The Supreme Court Practice, 1993, Vol. 1, pp. 849-850, may be quoted: “4. Wednesbury principle.— A decision of a public authority will be liable to be quashed or otherwise dealt with by an appropriate order in judicial review proceedings where the court concludes that the decision is such that no authority properly directing itself on the relevant law and acting reasonably could have reached it. (Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corpn. [(1948) 1 KB 223 : (1947) 2 All ER 680], per Lord Greene, M.R.)” 81. Two other facets of irrationality may be mentioned. (1) It is open to the court to review the decision-maker's evaluation of the facts. The court will intervene where the facts taken as a whole could not logically warrant the conclusion of the decision-maker. If the weight of facts pointing to one course of action is overwhelming, then a decision the other way, cannot be upheld. Thus, in Emma Hotels Ltd. v. Secretary of State for Environment [(1980) 41 P & CR 255], the Secretary of State referred to a number of factors which led him to the conclusion that a non-resident's bar in a hotel was operated in such a way that the bar was not an incident of the hotel use for planning purposes, but constituted a separate use. The Divisional Court analysed the factors which led the Secretary of State to that conclusion and, having done so, set it aside. The Divisional Court analysed the factors which led the Secretary of State to that conclusion and, having done so, set it aside. Donaldson, L.J. said that he could not see on what basis the Secretary of State had reached his conclusion. (2) A decision would be regarded as unreasonable if it is impartial and unequal in its operation as between different classes. On this basis in R. v. Barnet London Borough Council, ex p Johnson [(1989) 88 LGR 73] the condition imposed by a local authority prohibiting participation by those affiliated with political parties at events to be held in the authority's parks was struck down.” 22. In the case of Gohil Vishvaraj Hanubhai and others Vs. State of Gujarat and others, (2017) 13 SCC 621 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court, discussed the law on the subject as follows:- “16. Lord Diplock in his celebrated opinion in [Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service, 1985 AC 374 : (1984) 3 WLR 1174 : (1984) 3 All ER 935 (HL)] summarised the principles as follows: (AC p. 410 D-H & 411 A-B) “… Judicial review has I think developed to a stage today when without reiterating any analysis of the steps by which the development has come about, one can conveniently classify under three heads the grounds upon which administrative action is subject to control by judicial review. The first ground I would call “illegality”, the second “irrationality” and the third “procedural impropriety”. That is not to say that further development on a case-by-case basis may not in course of time add further grounds. I have in mind particularly the possible adoption in the future of the principle of “proportionality” which is recognised in the administrative law of several of our fellow members of the European Economic Community; but to dispose of the instant case the three already well-established heads that I have mentioned will suffice. By “illegality”, as a ground for judicial review, I mean that the decision-maker must understand correctly the law that regulates his decision-making power and must give effect to it. Whether he has or not is par excellence a justiciable question to be decided, in the event of dispute, by those persons, the Judges, by whom the judicial power of the State is exercisable. Whether he has or not is par excellence a justiciable question to be decided, in the event of dispute, by those persons, the Judges, by whom the judicial power of the State is exercisable. By “irrationality” I mean what can by now be succinctly referred to as “Wednesbury unreasonableness [Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corpn., (1948) 1 KB 223 (CA)]). It applies to a decision which is so outrageous in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it. Whether a decision falls within this category is a question that Judges by their training and experience should be well equipped to answer, or else there would be something badly wrong with our judicial system. To justify the court's exercise of this role, resort I think is today no longer needed to Viscount Radcliffe's ingenious explanation in [Edwards (Inspector of Taxes) v. Bairstow, 1956 AC 14 : (1955) 3 WLR 410 (HL)] of irrationality as a ground for a court's reversal of a decision by ascribing it to an inferred though unidentifiable mistake of law by the decision-maker. “Irrationality” by now can stand upon its own feet as an accepted ground on which a decision may be attacked by judicial review. I have described the third head as “procedural impropriety” rather than failure to observe basic rules of natural justice or failure to act with procedural fairness towards the person who will be affected by the decision. This is because susceptibility to judicial review under this head covers also failure by an administrative tribunal to observe procedural rules that are expressly laid down in the legislative instrument by which its jurisdiction is conferred, even where such failure does not involve any denial of natural justice. But the instant case is not concerned with the proceedings of an administrative tribunal at all.” It can be seen from the above extract, Lord Diplock identified three heads under which judicial review is undertaken i.e. illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety. He also recognised the possibility of new heads such as “proportionality” being identified in future. He explained the concepts of the three already identified heads. He declared that the head “irrationality” is synonymous with “Wednesbury unreasonableness.” 23. The Rules were amended with effect from 25.09.2021. He also recognised the possibility of new heads such as “proportionality” being identified in future. He explained the concepts of the three already identified heads. He declared that the head “irrationality” is synonymous with “Wednesbury unreasonableness.” 23. The Rules were amended with effect from 25.09.2021. Chapter XI has been added in the Rules, which deals with recognition, regulation and control of automated testing station. The eligibility for establishing such station has been given under Rule 176, which reads as hereunder:- “176. Eligibility. – (1) The owner or operator, as the case may be, of an automated testing station shall be the State Government or any company or association or body of individuals or individual or special purpose vehicle either directly or through public- private partnership. Provided that a vehicle manufacturer or service station or automobile dealer or any person related to repair of vehicle or manufacturing or sale of vehicle or automobile spares shall not become the owner or operator of an automated testing station directly: Provided further that, where, a vehicle manufacturer or service station or automobile dealer or any person related to repair of vehicle or manufacturing or sale of vehicle or automobile spares intends to become the owner or operator of an automated testing station, it may do so, by forming a subsidiary or joint venture or a special purpose vehicle. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1), the owner of an automated testing station may also be the operator of such automated testing station. (3) The owner or operator of an automated testing station shall possess, - (i) certificate of Incorporation or Shop Act registration or Udyam Aadhar; (ii) valid Goods and Service Tax certificate; and (iii) valid Permanent Account Number. (4) The owner or operator of an automated testing station shall have a minimum net worth of three crore rupees during the last financial year and should have a positive profit after tax in the last two financial years. (5) The premises where the automated testing station is to be housed shall either be owned or taken on lease or hired by the owner for a period not less than ten years.” 24. In fact, the EoI contains some of these conditions. Initially, the EoI was published on 14.12.2021. (5) The premises where the automated testing station is to be housed shall either be owned or taken on lease or hired by the owner for a period not less than ten years.” 24. In fact, the EoI contains some of these conditions. Initially, the EoI was published on 14.12.2021. It was subsequently modified on 31.12.2022 by which two modifications were made i.e. (i) the last date for submission of application form was extended till 07.01.2022 and (ii) one of the conditions with regard to premises has been changed. Initially, the EoI had provided that the premises where the automated testing station would be housed shall be either in possession of the applicant or at least it shall be on lease with him for at least 10 years on the date when the EoI was published. This has been amended to the effect that such possession or lease should be with the applicant on the date when he makes the application. The modification was done on 31.12.2021. All the participants were aware of it and they could have taken benefit of it. The modification was not made qua any single participant. 25. It is not disputed that the consortium could have participated in the process. It was so done by the respondent no. 5. The consortium of the respondent no. 5 was a union of two components, which had their separate GST number, PAN and Udyam Number. That is what was revealed in the initial application form. Merely because the respondent no. 5 subsequently got registration under GST, PAN and Udyam Number, it does not have any effect on the eligibility of the respondent no. 5. 26. The respondent no. 5 had got the lease of the land registered on 04.01.2022 where the Station was to be established. Similarly, the Pranam Builders Pvt. Ltd. Gomti Nagar (in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1273 of 2022) had obtained lease on 29.12.2021. It was registered on that date and the registered lease deed has been filed by the petitioner himself. A tabulation of the eligibility criteria has been done by the Evaluation Committee. In fact, the State Government did not act on their own. It is categorical case of the State that they sought advice from ICAT also on certain points. In paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit of the respondent no. A tabulation of the eligibility criteria has been done by the Evaluation Committee. In fact, the State Government did not act on their own. It is categorical case of the State that they sought advice from ICAT also on certain points. In paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit of the respondent no. 3, the points on which advice was sought, has been elaborated and in paragraph 14, the advice given by the ICAT has been disclosed. Para 13 and 14 of the counter affidavit read as hereunder:- “13. That in view of above, a request was made to provide advice on the following points by attaching the copy of the advertisement by letter dated 22.01.2022: Which among following experience certificates submitted by various applicants on the proposal can be considered- (a) Experience of operating an Automated Test Center by the applicant company or firm. (b) Experience of operation of such center by a Director of the company or a partner of a partnership firm or as the owner, Director or Partner in the other company. (c) Experience of technical operator employed by the applicant company or firm to operate an Automated Test Centre in any other company or firm working in the operation of such centre. Apart from above the clarification was sought on the issue of technical qualification.” * * * “14. That in view of the above query, the following advice was given by the Senior Manager, ICAT through e-mail dated 23.01.2022- (a) The document submitted by the applicant to prove their past experience as a company or firm engaged with same principle of business is valid and satisfy the EOI condition for applicant experience. (b) As mentioned that applicant is having partnership with owner, director or partner of any other company or firm having experience of operating the vehicle inspection centre. It is worthwhile to note that as per EOI floated by the department and as per GSR 652(e) dated 23.09.2021, body of individuals can apply and the partner of the firm is having experience. Therefore, the applicant satisfy the EOI condition. (c) As mentioned that applicant’s company or firm is having technical person for operations who is having working experience with some other vehicle inspection centre. In this case applicant satisfy the EOI condition. Therefore, the applicant satisfy the EOI condition. (c) As mentioned that applicant’s company or firm is having technical person for operations who is having working experience with some other vehicle inspection centre. In this case applicant satisfy the EOI condition. It is further submitted that in addition to the above points, department has asked for the additional technical eligibility to evaluate applications of applicants. As per GSR 652(e) dated 23.09.2021, the applicant has to satisfy all the conditions mentioned in Rule 176 before awarding preliminary registration certificate in form 61 and also the conditions mentioned in EOI to be complied by the applicant, in this regard below list of documents to be furnished by the applicants. S. No. Documents Required Remarks 1. Certificate of Incorporation or Shop Act registration or Uhyam Aadhar. In case of company, certificate of Incorporation or in case of firm, partnership deed between the parties should be furnished. 2. Valid Goods and Services Tax Certificate Required 3. Valid Permanent Account Number Required 4. Experience of Operations Self attested experience certificate for a period of at least six months, as per the condition as mentioned in EOI, from the authorized signatory of the applicant. 5. The owner or operator of an automated testing station shall have a minimum net worth of three crore rupees during the last financial year and should have a positive profit after tax in the last two financial years. Computation of income certificate audited by any CA for last two financial year, to be self attested by the authorized signatory of the applicant. 6. Solvency Certificate of INR 1.00 crore Required 7. The premises where the automated testing station is to be housed shall either be owned or taken on lease or hired by the owner for a period not less than ten years. In case of lease agreement, the agreement should be as per Uttarakhand State land lease agreement norms. The copy of letter dated 22.01.2022 seeking advice from ICAT and the response dated 23.01.2022 from the agency are collectively is being annexed herewith and marked as Annexure C.A.-1 to this affidavit.” 27. In paragraph 15 of the counter affidavit, the decision taken by the Evaluation Committee in its meeting dated 04.02.2022 has been revealed, which is as hereunder:- “15. That the meeting of Evaluation Committee was again held on 04.02.2022. In paragraph 15 of the counter affidavit, the decision taken by the Evaluation Committee in its meeting dated 04.02.2022 has been revealed, which is as hereunder:- “15. That the meeting of Evaluation Committee was again held on 04.02.2022. In the said meeting, on the basis of evaluation of the applications received by the committee and the advice given by the ICAT, decision has been taken by the committee, which is as follows- (1) Under the proposal, the experience of the applicant, status of land and acquisition of land on lease as per rule are important elements for consideration. (2) The experience certificates of all the applicants are valid on the basis of advice given by ICAT in respect of the experience of last six months. (3) Applicants, who have not attached a copy of the registered agreement of lease in respect of proposed land or have not applied to the concerned Registrar’s Office for registration as per the provision contained in Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 by the due date, the land cannot be considered to have been taken on lease by them. Hence all such applications are deserved to rejected.” 28. The minutes of Evaluation Committee and the comparative chart have been filed in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1273 of 2022. It records that both the petitioners did not file the registered lease deed. 29. In the instant case, the last date for submission of application form was extended upto 07.01.2022. This was applicable to one and all. This was not done for any individual or any particular participant. In so far as the Condition No. 3(g) of the EOI is concerned, which relates to lease deed of the premises where the Station was to be housed, it has also been made applicable to everyone. After receipt of the proposals, the Evaluation Committee, in fact, had sought the advice of ICAT, Manesar, as narrated hereinbefore. The process adopted by the State Government in awarding the work order for establishing these two Stations, in no manner, can be termed as irrational, illegal or unreasonable. All the procedural safeguard were maintained in the process. Therefore, we are of the view that there is no reason to make any interference. Accordingly, both the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed. 30. The writ petitions are dismissed.