JUDGMENT : Vipin Sanghi, J. Service on respondent No. 4 is complete. However, none has appeared on behalf of respondent No. 4 to defend these proceedings. Counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. We have, therefore, proceeded to hear this petition, and we proceed to dispose of the same. 2. The petitioner has preferred this petition to assail its technical disqualification by the respondent authorities in respect of the tender submitted by the petitioner for the work, namely, construction of boundary wall of Science City at Jhajhra, Dehradun, for which the respondent authorities invited bids vide the NIT dated 22.06.2023. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the award of the work to respondent No. 4, on the ground that the said respondent–contractor was actually technically disqualified, and was wrongly held to be technically qualified by the respondents. 3. The reason for petitioner’s disqualification communicated by the respondents are found in two communications. The first communication / Office Order dated 21.07.2023 was issued by the respondent in respect of all the bidders, wherein respondent No. 4 was declared to be qualified, and the other bidders, including the petitioner, were declared to be disqualified. So far as the petitioner is concerned, reason for disqualification stated in the communication dated 21.07.2023 was the following : ^^Jh eqds’k rksej] fuoklh yka?kk] lgliqj] nsgjknwu (FIN-4 ,ao going work dh lwpuk u fn;s tkus ls dkj.k½** 4. The petitioner responded to the communication on 21.07.2023 itself. Thereafter, the respondent issued another communication dated 22.07.2023, communicating further grounds for the petitioner’s disqualification. The petitioner responded to the communication on 21.07.2023 itself. Thereafter, the respondent issued another communication dated 22.07.2023, communicating further grounds for the petitioner’s disqualification. This communication reads as follows : ^^lsok esa Jh eqds’k rksej fuoklh yka?kk lgliqj nsgjknwuA fo”k; %& lkbal flVh >k>jk] nsgjknwu dh pkgjnhokjh dk fuek.kZ dk;Z (Tender Id: 2023_pwd_60333_1) dh fufonk ds lEcU/k esaA lanHkZ %& vkidk i=kad & ‘kwU;] fnukad 21-07-2023 mijksDr fo"k;d vius lanfHkZr i= dk voyksdu djsa ftlds }kjk vkifRr ntZ djrs gq,s iqu% rduhdh foM dk eqY;kadu djrs gq,s Lo;a dks lQy ?kksf"kr djus gsrq fuosnu fd;k x;k gSA ftlds Øe esa voxr djkuk gS fd fo"k;d dk;Z dh rduhdh foM fnukad 12-07-2023 dks fufonk lfefr ds lEeq[k v/kksgLrk{kjh ds dk;kZy; es [kksyh x;h FkhA ftlesa vkidh foM dk rduhdh ewY;kadu djus ds mijkUr FIN-4 ,ao Ongoing work dh lwpuk u fn;s tkus ds dkj.k vkidks izkbl foM [kksyus gsrq ik= ugha ik;k x;k FkkA vkids }kjk fd;s x;s vuqjks/k ij iqu vkidh fCkM dk rduhdh ewY;kadu djus ij ik;k x;k fd vkids }kjk Litigation history 100 #i;s ds Notorized Stamp Paper ij izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gS ,ao FIN-1 esa Current Asset Rs.27.23 Lakh – Current liabilities Rs.27.45 = -0.22 Lakh _.kkRed vkrh gSA vr% iqu% vkidh fCkM dk rduhdh ewY;kadu ds mijkUr Hkh vkidks izkbZl fCkM [kksyus gsrq ik= ugha ik;k x;kA** 5. From the above, it would be seen that the petitioner’s initial disqualification was on the ground that the petitioner had not provided information in Form FIN-4 regarding ongoing works. The said Form reads as under : “Form FIN-4 : Current Contract Commitments / Works in Progress Bidder (or each JV partner) should provide information indicated below in order to calculate the aggregated financial resources requirement, which requirement equals the sum of : (i) the Bidder’s (oreach JV partner’s) current commitments on all contracts that have been awarded, or for which a letter of intent or acceptance has been received, or for contracts approaching completion, but for which an unqualified, full completion certificate has syet to be issued and (ii) financial resources requirement for subject contract as determined by the Employer. Bidder must also disclose any other financial obligations that could materially affect the implementation of subject contract if such contract were to be awarded to the Bidder. Bidder must also disclose any other financial obligations that could materially affect the implementation of subject contract if such contract were to be awarded to the Bidder. Financial Resources Requirement No. Name Contract Employer’s Contact (Address, TFax) Contract Completion Date Remaining Contract Period in months (A) Outstanding Contract Value (B) Monthly Financial Resources Requirement (B / A) 1 2 3 4 A. Cumulative Financial Resources Requirement for Current Contract Commitments INR………. B. Financial Resources Requirement for Subject Contract (Employer to specify) INR…..Lakh [Insert amount equal to 10% of the estimated cost] Financial Resources Requirement (Sum of A and B) INR……… 1. Remaining contract period to be calculated from 28 days prior to bid submission deadline. 2. Remaining Outstanding Contract Value to be calculated from 28 days prior to the bid submission deadline (INR equivalent based on the foreign exchange rate as of the same date). 3. Each JV partner must meet 100% of 1 month of its own current works commitment. 4. All partners combined must meet 100% of this requirement. Each Partner and One Partner must meet specified percentage values in Section 3, sub-clause 2.3.3. Attached : An undertaking certifying that information on all current contract commitments has been provided and the information provided is correct. 6. The case of the petitioner is, that the petitioner had filled in the said Form as “Nil”, since the petitioner was not performing any other contract and, therefore, had no financial commitment. All the resources of the petitioner were available to carry out the contract in question, if awarded to the petitioner. The respondents state that the petitioner had not filled in the last column, against entry in row “B” – financial resources requirement for subject contract (employer to specify). The petitioner had left the last column blank, where the petitioner was expected to “(insert amount equal to 10% of the estimated cost)”. 7. The respondents state that the petitioner had not filled in the last column, against entry in row “B” – financial resources requirement for subject contract (employer to specify). The petitioner had left the last column blank, where the petitioner was expected to “(insert amount equal to 10% of the estimated cost)”. 7. To this, the submission of the petitioner is that the petitioner had provided the statement of financial resources in Form FIN-3, and the petitioner had also provided the net worth certificate, which reads as follows: NET WORTH CERTIFICATE NAME OF APPLICANT MUKESH TOMAR – VILLAGE MATOGI, LANGHA, VIKAS NAGAR, DEHRADUN Financial Information NET WORTH for Previous 5 Years (INR) 2021-22 2020-21 2019-20 2018-19 2017-18 2016-17 Information from Balance Sheet Total Assets 60,74,188 41,50,591 36,01,284 64,92,982 26,56,684 14,95,518 Total Liabilities 27,44,770 14,63,927 14,04,698 43,92,675 6,38,226 32,568 Networth 33,29,418 26,86,664 21,96,586 21,00,307 20,18,458 14,62,950 8. The petitioner had also provided the financial data -which has been filed by the respondent, along with their counter-affidavit, as duly certified by petitioner’s Chartered Accountant, which reads as follows : NAME OF APPLICANT MUKESH TOMAR – VILLAGE MATOGI, LANGHA, VIKAS NAGAR, DEHRADUN Name of Banker : PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Address of Banker : CHAKRATA ROAD, MAIN MARKET, VIKAS NAGAR, DEHRADUN Telephone : 8800519981 Contact name and title : BARU SINGH RAWAT (Senior Manager) Facsimile : N.A. Email : care@pnb.co.in Financial information Previous five years 2021-22 2020-21 2019-20 2018-19 2017-18 2016-17 Rs. In lacs Rs. In lacs Rs. In lacs Rs. In lacs Rs. In lacs Rs. In lacs Information From Balance Sheet Total Assets 60.74 41.51 36.01 64.93 26.57 14.96 Total Liabilities 27.45 14.64 14.05 43.93 6.38 0.33 Networth 33.29 26.87 21.97 21.00 20.18 14.63 Current Assets 27.23 21.09 25.16 48.44 10.06 11.33 Current Liabilities 27.45 14.64 14.05 43.93 6.38 0.33 Profits Before Tax 9.68 9.94 5.98 9.32 11.36 6.78 Profits after Taxes 8.36 8.90 5.98 8.37 10.20 6.78 (emphasis supplied) 9. Mr. Garg submits that the respondents appear to have adopted a hyper-technical approach, merely because the petitioner had not inserted the amount equal to 10% of the estimated cost in the last column against row “B” – financial resources requirement for subject contract (employer to specify)”, even though that information was provided by the petitioner in Form FIN-3, as well as by way of the petitioner’s net worth certificate, duly certified by the petitioner’s Chartered Accountant. Since the petitioner was not performing any other contract, it was clear that all its resources, as stipulated in column FIN-3, and which also emerged from the net worth certificate, were available for execution of the contract, if awarded to the petitioner. 10. Mr. Garg further submits that the respondents shifted their stand when the petitioner represented on 21.07.2023, by stating that the petitioner had not provided the litigation history on notarized stamp paper of Rs.100/-, and also that the current asset minus current liability of the petitioner was to the tune of Rs. - 0.22 lakhs. 11. In this regard, the submission of Mr. Garg is that there is no clause in the tender, which requires the bidders to provide the litigation history on notarized stamp paper of Rs.100/-. Mr. Garg has drawn our attention to clause 10 of the ‘Invitation for Bids’, which reads as follows : “10. The bids must be accompanied by the following Documents in Original- (i) A bid security in The name of Executive Engineer, Construction Division, PWD, Dehradun, in accordance with ITB 18.2 for this contract, (ii) Rs.100/- Stamp Paper with Rs.1/- Revenue Ticket affixed and signed on it, for the validity of rates of the Bidder for the validity period of 60 Days, (iii) Demand Draft in the name of Executive Engineer, Construction Division, PWD, Dehradun of the amount of bidding document, payable at Dehradun (iv) Copy of Contractor Registration as per Tender Notice, (v) Notarized Affidavit (on stamp paper of Rs.100/-) in the prescribed format/language given in the bidding document, regarding correctness of information furnished with the bid document, (vi) Bidder must submit an affidavit regarding site visit and examine the site of work on Rs. 10/- Stamp paper duly notarized. Visit of site of work shall be mandatory as per clause 7.2, Section-I (instructions to Bidders). These documents must be delivered to the office of Superintending Engineer, 9th Circle, PWD, Dehradun on or before 1500 hours on 12/07/2023. Bids will be opened at 1530 hours on the same day in the presence of bidders or authorized representatives.” 12. The said clause nowhere specifies that the litigation history is to be furnished on a stamp paper of Rs.100/-. In contra-distinction, clauses (i), (v) and (vi) of the aforesaid clause clearly state that the information is required to be provided on stamp paper of Rs.100/-. The said clause nowhere specifies that the litigation history is to be furnished on a stamp paper of Rs.100/-. In contra-distinction, clauses (i), (v) and (vi) of the aforesaid clause clearly state that the information is required to be provided on stamp paper of Rs.100/-. The petitioner further submits that upon receiving the communication dated 22.07.2023, the petitioner enquired from the respondent – as to where the requirement of providing the litigation history on stamp paper of Rs.100/- has been stipulated in the tender, to which the petitioner received no response. The stand taken by the respondents in their counter-affidavit is only that, since the petitioner is a contractor, he should be aware of the said requirement. Thus, the respondents admitted that in the tender document itself, there was no such requirement. 13. Mr. Garg further submits that the respondents have completely misdirected themselves in taking into account the current assets minus current liabilities figure. He avers that the form in which the information was sought itself provided that the total assets; total liabilities, and; the net asset, is required to be provided, which in the petitioner’s case has constantly been rising from 2016-2017 onwards, as duly certified by the petitioner’s Chartered Accountant. We have already extracted hereinabove the financial data provided by the petitioner as duly certified by the petitioner’s Chartered Accountant, which has been filed by the respondents themselves along with their counter-affidavit. The row containing the net worth of the petitioner, year after year, has been highlighted by us. 14. Mr. Garg submits that so far as respondent No. 4 is concerned, the said respondent has been wrongly held to be technically qualified, inasmuch as, the said respondent had not provided the bid security in terms of Clause 10(i), which provides that bid security in the name of the Executive Engineer, Construction Division, P.W.D., Dehradun, in accordance with ITB 18.2 had to be provided for the contract. 15. Clause 18, insofar as it is relevant, reads as follows : “18. Bid Security 18.1 Unless otherwise specified in the BDS, the Bidder shall furnish as part of its bid, a bid security as specified in the BDS, in original form. The amount and currency of the Bid Security shall be as specified in the BDS. 15. Clause 18, insofar as it is relevant, reads as follows : “18. Bid Security 18.1 Unless otherwise specified in the BDS, the Bidder shall furnish as part of its bid, a bid security as specified in the BDS, in original form. The amount and currency of the Bid Security shall be as specified in the BDS. 18.2 The bid security shall be, at the Bidder’s option, in any of the following forms: (a) an unconditional bank guarantee; (b) a Fixed Deposit Receipt; or (c) an irrevocable letter of credit; or (d) a cashier’s or certified check; all from a reputable bank from India. In the case of a bank guarantee, the bid security shall be submitted either using the Bid Security Form included in Section 4 (Bidding Forms) or in another substantially similar format approved by the Employer prior to bid submission. In either case, the form must include the complete name of the Bidder. The bid security shall be valid for twenty-eight days (28) beyond the original validity period of bid, or beyond any period of extension if requested under ITB 17.2 18.3 Any bid not accompanied by a substantially complaint bid security in accordance with ITB 18.2, shall be rejected by the Employer as non-responsive.” 16. The above would show that the bidders could provide the fixed deposit receipt towards bid security from a reputable bank from India. However, the bid security had to be in the name of the Executive Engineer, Construction Division, P.W.D., Dehradun. 17. Mr. Garg points out that the fixed deposit receipt provided by respondent No. 4 was a fixed deposit issued by Bank of India, Sevla Kalan Branch dated 12.07.2023, in the name of respondent No. 4, i.e., M/s Dev Construction, for an amount of Rs.3,87,000/-. The same was neither in the name of the Executive Engineer, Construction Division, P.W.D., Dehradun, nor was any lien marked in favour of the Executive Engineer, Construction Division, P.W.D., Dehradun, in the said fixed deposit. 18. Mr. Garg points out that the respondents had themselves stated in their communication dated 22.07.2023, that the bid evaluation had taken place on 12.07.2023. The same was neither in the name of the Executive Engineer, Construction Division, P.W.D., Dehradun, nor was any lien marked in favour of the Executive Engineer, Construction Division, P.W.D., Dehradun, in the said fixed deposit. 18. Mr. Garg points out that the respondents had themselves stated in their communication dated 22.07.2023, that the bid evaluation had taken place on 12.07.2023. In their counter-affidavit, the respondent authorities have now stated that they had sent a communication to the Bank of India for verification of the said fixed deposit and the pledge created in favour of the Executive Engineer, Construction Division, P.W.D., Dehradun, on 14.07.2023, i.e., after the examination of the technical bids of the bidders, wherein respondent No. 4’s bid was held to be responsive. Mr. Garg submits that even the certificate issued by the bank on 14.07.2023, filed by the respondents to their counter-affidavit as Annexure-4, does not certify that the fixed deposit submitted by respondent No. 4 was pledged in favour of the Executive Engineer, Construction Division, P.W.D., Dehradun. 19. He submits that, in any event, what is relevant is – as to how, the Technical Evaluation Committee could have assumed that the said fixed deposit was pledged in favour of the Executive Engineer, Construction Division, P.W.D., Dehradun, when it examined the documents submitted by respondent No. 4 on 12.07.2023. The communication issued by the bank on 14.07.2023 to the Executive Engineer, Construction Division, P.W.D., Dehradun, reads as follows : “To, Executive Engineer Construction Division P.W.D. Dehradun “Sub: Verification of F.D.R. With refer to captioned subject your letter no : 201/FDR/(02 C) dt 14.07.2023 regarding the FDR No-705745110001756 amount of Rs.3,87000/- (Three lac Eighty seven thousand only) dt 11-07-2023 & PLEDGE in favour of Executive Engineer Construction Division P.W.D., Dehradun A/c-Dev construction. We confirm that said FDR was issued by our system dt on 11-07-2023 on request of M/s Dev Construction. This certificate is issued to your for your record. Sd/- Sr. Branch Manager” 20. Another submission raised by the petitioner is that the respondent No. 4, even otherwise, does not have the requisite past experience to implement the contract in question. 21. Clause 2.4 of the tender document deals with the aspect of experience. Clause 2.4.1 deals with ‘general construction experience’, in respect whereof the form EXP-1 had to be filled. Branch Manager” 20. Another submission raised by the petitioner is that the respondent No. 4, even otherwise, does not have the requisite past experience to implement the contract in question. 21. Clause 2.4 of the tender document deals with the aspect of experience. Clause 2.4.1 deals with ‘general construction experience’, in respect whereof the form EXP-1 had to be filled. In respect of the specific construction experience under Clause 2.4.2, information had to be provided with regard to - “(a) Contracts of Similar Size and Nature”. Mr. Garg has drawn our attention to the communication issued by the respondents on 17.05.2023, after the pre-bid meeting held with the bidders. In the pre-bid meeting, the respondents had sought to clarify – as to what is the meaning of similar nature of work experience, and as to what type of works shall be considered, by stating “work related to building work or boundary wall related civil work shall be considered for similar nature of works”. The experience certificate had to be furnished and duly signed by the competent authority as per prescribed format. Form EXP-2 contains the following foot-note in this regard : “Attach copies of certificates of accreditation for the project listed above. These certificates should be furnished & duly signed by competent authority as per prescribed format (vide G.O. No. 2153/III(2)/19-75 ¼lkekU;½ 2000 , dated 03-06-2019) attached with this section as Annexure-1. If not furnished in prescribed format for required amount the bidder shall be non-responsive.” (emphasis supplied) 22. The certificate of completion of work itself had to be in the form Annexure-1, which too had to be issued by the Executive Engineer of the concerned Division. Mr. Garg points out that respondent No. 4 provided the experience certificate issued by DC(ENGR) 8th Battalion ITBP dated 20.06.2023, which related to the work “Construction / Up-gradation of Helipad at Geldung Post of 8th Battalion ITBP”. Mr. Garg submits that the said work did not fall within the meaning of “work of similar nature”, as clarified by the respondents themselves in the pre-bid meeting. He further points out that the respondent No. 4, on its own, issued a self-certificate in relation to the very same work by stating, under the heading : “Description of the similarity in accordance with criteria 2.4.2(a) of Section 3”, “Excavation, Pitching PCC 10, PCC 25 WALL RR, HILL CUTTING”. 23. He further points out that the respondent No. 4, on its own, issued a self-certificate in relation to the very same work by stating, under the heading : “Description of the similarity in accordance with criteria 2.4.2(a) of Section 3”, “Excavation, Pitching PCC 10, PCC 25 WALL RR, HILL CUTTING”. 23. Self-certified statement of respondent No. 4 was meaningless, as the said certificate had to be issued by the competent authority. Mr. Garg submits that the respondents have ignored the said serious deficiency in the bid of respondent No. 4, while holding respondent No. 4 to be technically qualified. 24. In response, Mr. Rawat has drawn the attention of the Court to the averment contained in para 7 of the counter-affidavit, wherein it is stated that the process of bid evaluation was started on opening of the technical bid on 12.07.2023. The affidavit states that after technical bid examination by the Technical Tender Committee on 21.07.2023, only respondent No. 4 was found to be eligible for opening of the financial bid. Mr. Rawat submits that, therefore, the technical evaluation of the bid was completed on 21.07.2023, and not on 12.07.2023. It was merely started on 12.07.2023. Mr. Rawat submits that, by that date, the bid security provided by respondent No. 4 had been got verified from the Bank of India, which had issued the certificate dated 14.07.2023. 25. In relation to the past experience of respondent No. 4, Mr. Rawat has drawn attention of the Court to the stand taken by the respondents in para 16 of their counter-affidavit. Para 16 of the said affidavit, insofar as it is relevant, reads as follows : “Accordingly, as per the aforesaid clause the work carried out by the respondent no. 4 in respect to construction work of helipad was completed satisfactorily by respondent 4, thus for the aforesaid reason the respondent no. 4 was found qualified for Technical bid. In this connection copy of the work certificate is being annexed herewith and marked as Annexure CA-6 to this affidavit.” 26. Annexure C.A.-6 is the self-certificate issued by respondent No. 4 M/s Dev Construction, as taken note of hereinabove. We reproduce the said certificate hereunder : FORM EXP -2(a) : Specific Construction Experience Contract of similar size and nature Contract No. ITBP/SHQ(DDN)/Const/E ngr/2019-19 dated 24-05-2019 Contract Identification Construction / Upgradation of Helipad at Geldung Post of 8th Bn ITBP. Annexure C.A.-6 is the self-certificate issued by respondent No. 4 M/s Dev Construction, as taken note of hereinabove. We reproduce the said certificate hereunder : FORM EXP -2(a) : Specific Construction Experience Contract of similar size and nature Contract No. ITBP/SHQ(DDN)/Const/E ngr/2019-19 dated 24-05-2019 Contract Identification Construction / Upgradation of Helipad at Geldung Post of 8th Bn ITBP. Award date : 29-07-2021 28-07-2022 Role in contract Contractor Management Contractor Total contract amount Rs.26300000/- If partner in JV or subcontractor, specify participation of total contract amount Percent of total : N/A Amount : N/A Employer’s name Assistant Commandant Address 8th BN ITBP GAUCHAR UTTARAKHAND Telephone Email Description of the similarity in accordance with criteria 2.4.2(a) of section 3 EXCAVATION, PITCHING PCC10, PCC25, WALL RR, HILL CUTTING 27. In response to our query – as to how the Technical Evaluation Committee could have looked into the self-certificate issued by respondent No. 4, Mr. Rawat has no answer. 28. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties in the light of the record. 29. The stand taken by the respondents shows that they have been shifting their position from time to time. The initial reason given by them for the petitioner’s disqualification was that the petitioner had not provided information regarding the ongoing work in Form FIN-4. The petitioner responded to the said disqualification by informing the respondents that the petitioner had filled the said form as ‘Nil’, on account of the fact that the petitioner was not performing any works at the relevant point of time. Upon receiving the said communication, the respondents shifted their stand, and claimed that the petitioner had not provided the litigation history on rupees hundred notarized stamp paper, and that the current assets of the petitioner were in the negative, i.e., -0.22 lakhs. This was not the stand taken by the respondents in the initial communication declaring the petitioner to be disqualified. When the petitioner enquired, as to where is the requirement for the petitioner to provide the litigation history on rupees hundred stamp paper, the respondents did not answer the said query. The stand taken by them in their counter-affidavit is that the petitioner - being a contractor, should be aware of this requirement. When the petitioner enquired, as to where is the requirement for the petitioner to provide the litigation history on rupees hundred stamp paper, the respondents did not answer the said query. The stand taken by them in their counter-affidavit is that the petitioner - being a contractor, should be aware of this requirement. Once such a requirement has not been stipulated in the tender document, there was no question of the petitioner being disqualified for not submitting the litigation history on stamp paper of rupees hundred. This ground of rejection taken by the respondents is, therefore, completely erroneous. So far as the ground taken with regard to the current assets being in the negative is concerned, the petitioner has rightly pointed out that there is no requirement for a bidder to have positive current net assets. What is stipulated - as a requirement, is the positive net worth, and the petitioner had provided information with regard to the petitioner’s net worth which can be seen to be rising, year after year, from 2016-17 to 2021-22. Therefore, even this ground taken by the respondents is wholly unsubstantiated and of no avail. 30. During the course of his arguments, Mr. Rawat has submitted that the petitioner had not filled in row ‘B’ of Form FIN-4 in rupee, to indicate the availability of financial resources for the subject contract. It was for the petitioner to show that it had the financial resources of 10% of the estimated cost available. On this aspect, the submission of Mr. Garg is that, since the petitioner had declared that the petitioner was not carrying on any other contract, and the petitioner had also provided its net worth, it was clear that the entire net worth of the petitioner was available as the financial resources for the subject contact. 31. The purpose of evaluation of a bid is to examine the bid in a meaningful and intelligent way. It is fair and reasonable to assume that those entrusted with the task of evaluating bids received in response to a public tender, are persons with reasonable intelligence and experience. It is fair to assume, that they are aware of the fact that the purpose of the entire bidding exercise, is to select the competent and qualified bidder who has offered the best financial quotation, for executing the work under the tender. It is fair to assume, that they are aware of the fact that the purpose of the entire bidding exercise, is to select the competent and qualified bidder who has offered the best financial quotation, for executing the work under the tender. It is not merely a superficial examination of the bids, without any application of mind, that the bid evaluation authority is expected to undertake. The authority cannot, on its own, imagine, guess, or estimate the information that the bidder is required to provide. The authority is not expected to undertake a long drawn exercise to calculate, or deduce the information, that the bidder is obliged to provide. At the same time, the authority cannot turn a blind eye to the information provided by the bidder along with its bid, and ignore the information called for, and provided by the bidder. The endeavour of the authority examining the bids should be to increase competition, rather than to curtail the same, by disqualifying bidders on hypertechnical grounds. The bid evaluation authority is also expected to act fairly, and without any biases or prejudices for, or against any of the bidders. The conduct of such an authority cannot be arbitrary, or discriminatory. 32. In the present case, the respondents have done just that. Only respondent No. 4 was held to be technically qualified, while all others were disqualified, removing all competition. A little careful scrutiny of the petitioner’s technical bid would have disclosed to the respondents, that the petitioner had the financial resources to carry out the contract in question. The petitioner had provided its duly certified statement of net worth. It had also stated that it was not carrying on any other contract. Thus, its resources – equivalent to its net worth, could be considered as available for execution of the contract. 33. We may now move on to examine the case of the petitioner that respondent No. 4 was not technically qualified, and the respondents have erred in declaring the bid of respondent No. 4 to be technically qualified. The technical bids were opened on 12.07.2023, and the petitioner and other bidders were held to be disqualified on the same day. Respondent No. 4 was, however, declared to be technically qualified. Only thereafter, the respondents proceeded to address a communication to the bank of respondent No. 4. The technical bids were opened on 12.07.2023, and the petitioner and other bidders were held to be disqualified on the same day. Respondent No. 4 was, however, declared to be technically qualified. Only thereafter, the respondents proceeded to address a communication to the bank of respondent No. 4. Therefore, we have to see whether the declaration of respondent No. 4 as technically qualified on 12.07.2023 was justified, or not. Admittedly, respondent No. 4 had provided – towards bid security, one fixed deposit receipt in its own name. Admittedly, no lien was marked on the said fixed deposit in favour of the Executive Engineer concerned. How then, the respondents could have accepted the said bid security, which was in the name of respondent No. 4, has not been explained. Even the communication relied upon by the respondents – received from the Branch Manager of the bank of respondent No. 4 of 14.07.2023, is neither here, nor there. The said communication merely verifies the creation of the fixed deposit by respondent No. 4 of the amount of Rs.3,87,000/- on 11.07.2023. The said certificate does not confirm that any pledge was created in favour of the Executive Engineer, Construction Division, P.W.D. A careful perusal of the said communication shows that the first paragraph merely reproduces the letter sent by the respondents to the bank. The confirmation is only in respect of the issuance of the fixed deposit on 11.07.2023 on the request of M/s Dev Construction. It nowhere states that lien has been marked on the said fixed deposit in favour of the Executive Engineer, as aforesaid. Moreover, the said communication was issued on 14.07.2023, whereas the examination of the bids / documents by the Technical Evaluation Committee, and the declaration of respondent No. 4 as technically qualified, had already been done on 12.07.2023. If the respondents would not have favoured respondent No. 4, they would have rejected its bid, like they rejected all other bids, on 12.07.2023 itself. Clearly, the said fixed deposit receipt provided by respondent No. 4, in his own name, could not have served as a valid bid security for the tender in question. On that ground, the bid of respondent No. 4 was liable to be rejected as technically disqualified on 12.07.2023 itself. The submission of Mr. Clearly, the said fixed deposit receipt provided by respondent No. 4, in his own name, could not have served as a valid bid security for the tender in question. On that ground, the bid of respondent No. 4 was liable to be rejected as technically disqualified on 12.07.2023 itself. The submission of Mr. Rawat that the process of bid evaluation was started on 12.07.2023, and it was concluded on 21.07.2023 is neither here, nor there. This is for the reason that respondent No. 4 had already been declared to be technically qualified on 12.07.2023. 34. We also find merit in the submission of Mr. Garg that respondent No. 4 did not have the past experience of doing similar works, as clarified by the respondent themselves in the pre-bid meeting. From the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, it is clear that they have proceeded to consider the self certification provided by respondent No. 4 with regard to its past experience. This action of the respondents is also clearly contrary to the terms of the tender, which required that the certificate of past experience had to be issued by the competent authority. On this ground as well the technical bid of respondent No. 4 was liable to be rejected. 35. From the above discussion, it emerges that the respondents have not been fair and transparent in the matter of evaluation of the bids received by them in response to the tender in question. It appears to us, that the respondents acted in a premeditated mind to favour respondent No. 4, despite the fact that the said respondent was technically disqualified for various reasons, as already taken note of hereinbefore. However, the respondent authorities overlooked the technical disqualification of respondent No. 4, and proceeded to award the contract to it. When it came to examination of the petitioner’s technical bid, the respondents adopted a much stricter standard, than the standard adopted while examining the bid of respondent No. 4. The conduct of the respondent authorities is clearly discriminatory. 36. In matters of award of public contracts, it is well settled that the State is obliged to act in a transparent and fair manner. The State cannot be seen to be acting with a bias in favour of, or against, any party. The conduct of the respondent authorities is clearly discriminatory. 36. In matters of award of public contracts, it is well settled that the State is obliged to act in a transparent and fair manner. The State cannot be seen to be acting with a bias in favour of, or against, any party. The endeavour of the State should always be to pick up the most competent and financially suitable bidder to do the public work in question. In the present case, the conduct of the respondents has led to failure of justice, and their conduct is not in public interest, which lies in ensuring that a competent and financially suitable bidder is selected to execute the public works. 37. For the aforesaid reasons, we allow this writ petition and quash the award of the tender to respondent No. 4. The respondents may proceed to take further decision with regard to the award of the contract to the petitioner, or to cancel the tender process, and reinitiate the same. The writ petition is allowed with costs of Rs.50,000/- to be paid by the respondent authorities to the petitioner.