ORDER : The Writ Petition No.13821 of 2023 came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “….to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondent authorities in tender processing tender vide tender ID:604508 NIT No. SE/R&B/NABARD/GNT/50/2022-23 dated 27.03.2023 for the purpose of widening and strengthening of Rajupalem Amaravathi road from KM 3.800 to 49.369 in Guntur District under NABARD (RIDF)-XXVIII; (i) in disqualifying petitioners’ technical bid vide orders dated 1.6.2023 and not allowing them to participate in the price bid and reversing tender; (ii) in allowing the 5th Respondent, who is disqualified technically, in opening of the price bid of the 5th Respondent; (iii) in awarding the contract for the work of widening and strengthening of Rajupalem - Amaravathi road from KM 3.800 to 49.369 in Guntur District under NABARD (RIDF)-XXVIII in favour of the 4th respondent as arbitrary, illegal, null and void, against the norms of public policy and principles of natural justice and contrary to the bid document and to set aside the same and to issue consequential direction directing the respondent authorities – (i) to disqualify the 5th respondent as not being the lead partner; (ii) to cancel the entire tender process including awarding the tender in favour of the 4th respondent; (iii) to issue fresh tender notification for the work of widening and strengthening of Rajupalem - Amaravathi road from KM 3.800 to 49.369 in Guntur District under NABARD (RIDF) –XXVIII; and to pass.….” 2. The Writ Petition No.13821 of 2023 came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “….to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent authority in disqualifying technical bids, vide Proceedings Lr.No.NABARD/W&S of R-A road/Evaluation/NRT/AEEZ/2022, dated 15.05.2023 submitted by the petitioners in response to the Tender ID:604508, NIT No.SE/R&B/NABARD/GNT/50/2022-23 dated 27.03.2023 for the work of widening and strengthening of Rajupalem - Amaravathi Road from KM 3.800 to 49.369 in Guntur district under NABARD (RIDF)-XXVIII as arbitrary, illegal, null and void, against the norms of public policy and principles of Natural Justice and to issue consequential direction directing the respondent authorities to accept the technical bid of the petitioners and to open the price bid by allowing the petitioners for participating in the reverse tendering process and to pass….” 3. Since the relief claimed in both the petitions is identical, I find that it is appropriate to decide both the writ petitions by common order. 4. The factual matrix in W.P.No.13821 of 2023 is as follows: In pursuance of the tender notification issued by respondent No.3 vide Tender ID:604508, NIT No.SE/R&B/NABARD/GNT/50/2022-23 dated 27.03.2023 for the purpose of widening and strengthening of Rajupalem – Amaravathi road from KM 3.800 to 49.369 in Guntur District under NABARD (RIDF)-XXVIII, the petitioners have submitted their tenders. The estimated value of the said tender is Rs.117,54,27,724 and the period of completion of the said works is 24 months. 5. The petitioners and two other companies M/s UBS Infra Project Limited (respondent No.5) and M/s VS Engineering Pvt. Limited, Hyderabad (respondent No.4) have filed the tender documents within the stipulated time and in pre-qualification, all the four tenderers are qualified and the technical bids were opened on 03.05.2023. After evaluation on 16.05.2023, the petitioner companies, who have filed the tender documents have been disqualified on the ground that petitioner No.1 has not uploaded all the documents in proof of experience and also not satisfied the condition of minimum executed quantity of C.C. and petitioner No.2 has not enclosed the solvency certificate in the prescribed format for the joint venture. 6. 6. As per the statement of experience certificate filed by petitioner No.1 in regard to the extent of quantity and certificates, total 11 works have been completed as on the date of submission of the tender. While uploading the documents, only 10 documents have been uploaded. Petitioner No.1 came to know the said fact only when the technical bid has been opened and evaluation has been carried out. Accordingly, petitioner No.1 submitted representation on 08.05.2023 submitting 11th document i.e. experience certificate with regard to the work mentioned at Sl.No.4, to respondent Nos.2 and 3. In spite of the same, evaluation authorities rejected the tender submitted by petitioner No.1. 7. Petitioner No.2 has submitted solvency certificate to a tune of Rs.20.00 crores, though, as per the bid document, the solvency certificate required is only for an amount of Rs.14,69,28,466/-. The solvency certificate can be issued only to the firm or company who are attached to the bank and its financial credit not beyond the same. In the instant case, the joint venture is not having any bank transaction with the State Bank of India, as such the solvency certificate was not issued by the bank. As the question of issuance of solvency certificate by the bank at the stage of pre-qualification does not arise, petitioner No.2 submitted representation to the respondent authorities, and in spite of giving clarification, respondent No.3 has not considered the tender application of the petitioners. Questioning the said tender process petitioners have filed W.P.No.13590 of 2023, wherein this Court granted the following interim direction: “Respondent No.2 is directed to look into the said representations and to pass appropriate orders before opening of the price bid.” 8. In pursuance of the interim order granted by this Court, respondent No.2 rejected the petitioners’ technical bid on 01.06.2023 at 01.45 p.m. and at 02.30 p.m. the price bid of respondent Nos.4 and 5 has been opened and reverse tender process also concluded on the same day at 03.00 p.m. and award has been granted in favour of respondent No.4. Questioning the entire tender process, the present writ petition is filed challenging the impugned proceedings dated 01.06.2023, wherein the bid of petitioner No.1 was rejected. 9. The tender of petitioner No.1 was rejected on the ground that though petitioner No.1 has uploaded the statement showing that it has completed 11 works and having experience of 10287.96 cum. Questioning the entire tender process, the present writ petition is filed challenging the impugned proceedings dated 01.06.2023, wherein the bid of petitioner No.1 was rejected. 9. The tender of petitioner No.1 was rejected on the ground that though petitioner No.1 has uploaded the statement showing that it has completed 11 works and having experience of 10287.96 cum. for the financial years 2018-19 to 2022-23, but, petitioner No.1 has failed to file experience certificate pertaining to the work shown at Sl.No.4 (738 cum). 10. It is the case of petitioner No.1 that as per the tender notification, the minimum requisite quantity executed in any one financial year during the last five financial years i.e. from 2018-19 to 2022-23 is 9,899.00 cum., but, however, petitioner No.1 possessed more experience than requisite, but failed to upload the experience certificate for the work executed shown at Sl.No.4 of the statement uploaded by petitioner No.1, for which clarification has been sought. Accordingly, petitioner No.1 submitted his explanation stating that the said document could not be uploaded by mistake of computer operator of petitioner No.1 and further stated that as per clause No.11.1 VII of preparation of tenders, respondents have to take clarification from the bidders relating to technical proof of document. It is further stated that in pursuance of the interim order granted by this Court in W.P.No.13590 of 2023, respondent No.2 even without considering the explanation and without considering the experience statement uploaded by petitioner No.1, the present impugned order dated 01.06.2023 was passed straight away by respondent No.2 rejecting the case of petitioner No.1 without assigning any reasons. 11. Insofar as petitioner No.2 is concerned, rejection is on the ground that solvency certificate is in individual name and not in the name of the firm. It is the case of petitioner No.2 that in the tender notification, nowhere it is stated that solvency certificate should be issued in the name of joint venture, as such the act of the respondents authorities in rejecting the technical bid of petitioner No.2 is absolutely illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable. 12. When the writ petition came up for hearing on 15.06.2023, after hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader and Mr. V.V. Lakshmi Narayana, learned counsel appearing for unofficial respondent No.4, this Court was of the opinion that unless counter is filed before this Court, the case could not have been decided. 12. When the writ petition came up for hearing on 15.06.2023, after hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader and Mr. V.V. Lakshmi Narayana, learned counsel appearing for unofficial respondent No.4, this Court was of the opinion that unless counter is filed before this Court, the case could not have been decided. However, learned counsel for the petitioner took an objection that if at all the matter is adjourned, the respondent No.4 may commence the work in whose favour an agreement was already entered on 13.06.2023. Learned Government Pleader has stated that the cause in the writ petition does not survive as respondents authorities has already entered into agreement with respondent No.4 on 13.06.2023. Thereafter, Mr. V.V. Lakshmi Narayana appearing for the Respondent No.4 gave an undertaking, across the bench after obtaining instructions from his client, that they will not commence the work till 21.06.2023. 13. Respondent No.3 filed counter denying all the material allegations and contended that the tender was called for the purpose of "Widening and Strengthening of Rajupalem - Amaravathi road from KM 3.800 to 49.369 in Guntur District under NABARD (RIDF) - XXVIII" vide tender notification dated 27.03.2023. The said project was necessitated as the said Rajupalem - Amaravathi road is an important major road in Guntur district and it interconnects four Mandal Headquarters and connects Rajupalem, Nagireddypalem, Bellamkonda, New Chityala, Chandrajupalem, Kandipadu, Avulavaripalem, Dodleru, Ananthavaram, Krosuru, Vipparla, Vutukuru, Bayyavaram, Munugodu, Jupudi, Malladi, Didugu, Dharanikota and Amaravathi Villages and also connects many other interior villages to the Mandal Head Quarters. The road has high intensity of Traffic conveying the Sand loads from sand quarries located in Krishna River and Agricultural produce of the surrounding villages to the main Market yards at Piduguralla, Sattenapalli, Krosuru and Guntur. The vehicular traffic and public are experiencing great difficulty, in view of the bad condition of the existing single lane carriageway. Further, the traffic intensity on this road is very high and the population of more than lakhs of people are benefited by the widening of road sought to be undertaken by the State. It is submitted that the road from Km 0/0 to 3/800 was widened long back and from Km 3/800 to 45/700 is Single lane and Km 45/700 to 49/369 is intermediate lane. Several accidents have occurred in the Single lane. It is submitted that the road from Km 0/0 to 3/800 was widened long back and from Km 3/800 to 45/700 is Single lane and Km 45/700 to 49/369 is intermediate lane. Several accidents have occurred in the Single lane. Hence, it is essential to widen the road Km.3/800 to 49/369 from the existing Single/intermediate lane to Double lane with paved shoulders, because of which the tender notification was issued. 14. The Government of Andhra Pradesh has accorded Administrative Sanction for work "Widening and Strengthening of Rajupalem- Amaravathi Road from Km 3.800 to 49.369 in Guntur District under NABARD (RIDF) - XXVIII for Rs.148.95 Crores vide G.O.Rt.No.9, dt.09.01.2023 of Transport, Roads & Buildings (RI) Department. Respondent No.2 has accorded Technical Sanction for the above subject work for Rs.148.95 Crores vide T.S.Memo.1/NABARD 2022-23/CE(RR)/DCE(RR)/EE(RR)/DEEII/AEE3/2022-23 dated 08.02.2023. Respondent No.3 has invited Tenders on AP E-Procurement online platform to choose an agency for the execution of the above subject work vide Tender Notice. NIT. No.SE/R&B/NABARD/GNT/50/2022-23, dated 27.03.2023. 15. It is further stated that the following are the important dates for the subject tender process. (1) Bid Document Downloading starts on 01.04.2023@3.00 p.m., i.e., submission of tenders by the bidders will commence from the said date; (2) Last date for submission of Tender was on 01.05.2023@3.30 p.m. and same was extended to 03.05.2023 @ 3.30 p.m. as the last two days (30.04.02023 & 01.05.02023) happened to be bank holidays: (3) Pre-qualification (PQ) Stage was on 01.05.2023@4.00 p.m. and the same was extended to 03.05.2023 @ 4.00 p.m. In this stage, the submitted documents of all participated bidders will be downloaded and Technical bid evaluation of the tenders of the bidders will be done on the certificates/documents uploaded through online only; (4) Commercial Bid was opened on 04.05.2023@4.00 p.m. PM. In this stage, the bid amount of each of the bidders is verified and the system automatically identifies the lowest bidder i.e. L1. Thereafter, all those who have qualified in the technical bid evaluation will be allowed to participate in next stage i.e., Reverse Auction; (5) Reverse Auction took place on 05.05.2023 @ 2.00 p.m. to 5.00 p.m. In this stage, the qualified bidders in the technical bid evaluation will be allowed to participate and the bidders would be allowed to bid an amount lower than LI, which would be treated as Base Price, if they so choose. (6) Technical Qualification (TQ) Stage took place on 06.05.2023 @ 11.00 p.m. In this stage, the bidder who quotes lowest in the Reverse Auction process will be identified as L1 will be recommended to the Chief Engineer (R&B) RR, NABARD&LWE, Vijayawada for favour of acceptance and to award the work to execution. 16. It is further stated that the following documents are to be uploaded by the bidders through online in AP E-Procurement portal, only: (1). Contractor's Registration: either individual or by Joint Venture or Consortium duly formed and constituted as unlimited liability partnership firm as G.O.MS. No.94, 1&CAD (PW.COD) dept., dated 01.07.2003: Special Class (Civil); (2). Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) @1% of the Estimated Contract Value (ECV). (3) Transaction Fee @0.04% on ECV, (4) Income Tax PAN card with latest Income Tax Returns. (5) GST Registration, (6) Details of Civil Engineering works executed during the last Five financial years in the TENDERERS name in statement-1. (7) Details of similar nature of works completed as prime contractor (in the same name) during the last Five financial years in statement - II with supporting certificates, (8) Quantities of works executed in road works as prime contractor (in the same name) during the last Five financial years in statement III with supporting certificates, (9) Details of existing commitments i.e., work on hand and works for which tenders are submitted in statement IV A with supporting certificates and IV B Tenders submitted/likely to be awarded, (10) Availability of critical equipment in statement V. (11) Availability of key personnel in statement VI, (12) Proof of liquid assets in the shape of Solvency certificates etc., for the required amount in the prescribed proforma enclosed to the Bid Document. 17. It is further stated that the PQ stage was opened through AP E- Procurement platform on 03.05.2023 after 4.00 p.m. as stipulated in the bid notice and the four bidders (04) have participated in tendering process namely (1) M/s Prudhvi Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Sattenapalli i.e. petitioner No.1, (2). M/s UBS Infraa Projects Pvt. Ltd., Guntur & M/S NSPR Constructions (India) Pvt. Ltd., Pullivendula (JV) i.e. respondent No.5, (3) M/s. V.S.Engineering Pvt. Ltd, Hyderabad & M/s KBC infrastructures Lid Guntur (JV) i.e. respondent No.4, (4). M/s Sri Sainath Constructions, Ongole & M/s DDR & CO., Tirupathi (JV) i.e. petitioner No.2. M/s UBS Infraa Projects Pvt. Ltd., Guntur & M/S NSPR Constructions (India) Pvt. Ltd., Pullivendula (JV) i.e. respondent No.5, (3) M/s. V.S.Engineering Pvt. Ltd, Hyderabad & M/s KBC infrastructures Lid Guntur (JV) i.e. respondent No.4, (4). M/s Sri Sainath Constructions, Ongole & M/s DDR & CO., Tirupathi (JV) i.e. petitioner No.2. The technical bid evaluation was done for all the bidders based on the documents uploaded by the bidders through online. In the technical bid evaluation, two bidders, i.e. (1) M/s UBS Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., Guntur & M/s NSPR Constructions (India) Pvt. Ltd. Pulivendula (JV) i.e. respondent No.5 herein, (2) M/s V.S.Engineering Pvt. Ltd, Hyderabad & M/s KBC Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Guntur (JV) i.e. respondent No.4 were qualified for opening of Commercial bid and other two bidders i.e., M/s Prudhvi Constructions Pvt. Ltd, Sattenapalli i.e. petitioner No.1 & M/s Sri Sainath Constructions, Ongole & M/s DDR &CO, Tirupathi (JV), i.e. petitioner No.2, were disqualified. 18. It is further stated that during technical bid evaluation of the bids in PQ Stage, it was noticed that petitioner No.1 has not uploaded all required documents in the e- procurement platform as proof of experience of executed quantities in respect of PCC/VCC/VRCC/PSC or combined quantity to meet a quantity of 9899.00 Cum, in pursuance of Clause No.6 of procedure for bid submission of Notice Inviting Tenders(NIT), wherein it is categorically stated that "the department shall carry out the technical bid evaluation solely based on the uploaded certificates/documents DD/BG towards EMD/affidavit in the e-procurement system and open the price bids of the responsive bidders and proceed further for reverse auctioning." 19. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he is not pressing writ petition No.13821 of 2023 insofar as petitioner No.2 is concerned. 20. With regard to petitioner No.1, he has submitted the bid within the stipulated time with all the relevant documents including experience certificate. However, the respondents authorities rejected the bid of petitioner No.1 on the ground that petitioner No.1 has not uploaded the experience certificate for the work executed shown at Sl.No.4 of the statement uploaded by him. He has contended that the said document has not been uploaded by mistake of computer operator of petitioner No.1 and further stated that as per Condition No.11.1 VII, respondents have to take clarification from the bidders relating to technical proof of document. He has contended that the said document has not been uploaded by mistake of computer operator of petitioner No.1 and further stated that as per Condition No.11.1 VII, respondents have to take clarification from the bidders relating to technical proof of document. But even without considering the same, respondents authorities rejected the bid filed by petitioner No.1. 21. Learned counsel for petitioner No.1 further contended that in pursuance of the interim order passed by this Court in W.P.No.13590 of 2023, petitioner No.1 submitted representation on 08.05.2023 along with experience certificate pertaining to work shown at Sl.No.4 of the statement uploaded by petitioner No.1, but the respondents authorities even without considering the representation submitted by No.1 rejected the bid submitted by it. Therefore, the action of respondents authorities in rejecting the bid of the petitioner is highly illegal and arbitrary, requested to allow the writ petition. 22. Learned Government Pleader for Roads and Buildings contended that as per clause 22.1 of special conditions, the authorities are not required to seek clarification from the bidders for the documents not uploaded by the bidders, and that as per condition No.4 of the special conditions, the contractors shall submit their bids online only and the authorities cannot accept the documents filed offline. Technical bids were opened on 03.05.2023, but the petitioner submitted experience certificate pertaining to the work shown at Sl.No.4 of the statement uploaded by him, along with representation on 08.05.2023 i.e. five days after opening of the bids, which is not permissible. Hence, the bid of petitioner No.1 was rejected and that the subject work has already been allotted to respondent No.4 on 13.06.2023. In support of his contentions, he relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “M/s.N.G.Projects Limited Vs. M/s. Vinod Kumar Jain and others, AIR 2022 SC 1531 ” 23. Sri V.V.Lakshmi Narayana, learned counsel for respondent No.4, would submit that after due process, tender filed by respondent No.4 was accepted and allotted the work on 13.06.2023. There is no illegality in accepting the tender filed by respondent No.4, however in pursuance of the undertaking given by him, the work has been stalled, and requested to dismiss the writ petition. 24. The administrative decisions are subject to judicial review Under Article 226 of the Constitution, only on grounds of perversity, patent illegality, irrationality, want of power to take the decision and procedural irregularity. 24. The administrative decisions are subject to judicial review Under Article 226 of the Constitution, only on grounds of perversity, patent illegality, irrationality, want of power to take the decision and procedural irregularity. Except on these grounds administrative decisions are not interfered with, in exercise of the extra ordinary power of judicial review. In “Sarvepalli Ramaiah (Died) through L.Rs. v. District Collector, Chittoor District, AIR 2019 SC 1706 ” the Apex Court held as under: “A decision may sometimes be set aside and quashed Under Article 226 on the ground of illegality. This is when there is an apparent error of law on the face of the decision, which goes to the root of the decision and/or in other words an apparent error, but for which the decision would have been otherwise. Judicial review Under Article 226 is directed, not against the decision, but the decision making process. Of course, a patent illegality and/or error apparent on the face of the decision, which goes to the root of the decision, may vitiate the decision making process. In this case there is no such patent illegality or apparent error. In exercise of power Under Article 226, the Court does not sit in appeal over the decision impugned, nor does it adjudicate hotly disputed questions of fact.” 25. In view of the law declared by the Apex Court in the judgment (referred supra), this Court has to examine the decision making process of the respondents in finalising the tenders. 26. On perusal of the facts, it is clear that the respondents authorities issued notification dated 27.03.2023 for "Widening and Strengthening of Rajupalem - Amaravathi road from KM 3.800 to 49.369 in Guntur District under NABARD (RIDF) - XXVIII". Downloading of bid document was commenced 01.04.2023 at 03.00 p.m., last date for submission of tender is 01.05.203 at 03.30 p.m. and the same was extended up to 03.05.2023 at 04.00 p.m. Based on the evaluation of uploaded documents, bid of petitioner No.1 was rejected as it is not satisfying the minimum quantities in any one financial year during the last five financial years i.e. from 2018-19 to 2022-23 i.e. PCC/VCC/VRCC/PSC or combined quantity of 9899 cum. Petitioner No.1 contended that it has submitted the experience certificate along with representation dated 08.05.2023, but the same was not considered by the respondents authorities. 27. Petitioner No.1 contended that it has submitted the experience certificate along with representation dated 08.05.2023, but the same was not considered by the respondents authorities. 27. Respondent No.2 rejected the bid filed by petitioner No.1 vide order dated 01.06.2023, wherein it is specifically stated as follows: “Based on the evaluation done on uploaded documents your bid is not satisfying having executed the minimum quantities in any one financial year during the last five financial years i.e. from 2018-19 to 2022-2023 i.e. PCC/VCC/VRC/PSC or combined quantity of 9899 cum. Hence found to be disqualified under clause No.6 (c) of eligibility criteria for opening price bid under Special conditions of bid document. Hence, the representation of M/s Prudhvi Constructions Pvt. Ltd dated 08.05.2023 is considered and the bid is found to be non-responsive.” 28. For better appreciation, this Court feels that it is appropriate to extract the following clauses. Clause 11.1 (vii) of preparation of tenders: “The Bidder shall authenticate the bid with his digital certificate for submitting the bid electronically on e-Procurement platform and the bids not authenticated by Digital Certificate of the bidder will not be accepted on the AP e-procurement platform. The technical bids will be opened on line by the concerned Superintending Engineer at the time and date as specified in the tender documents. All the statements, documents, certificates, etc. uploaded by the TENDERERs will be downloaded for technical evaluation. The clarifications, particulars if any required from the bidders will be obtained or in the conventional method by addressing the bidders. The technical bids will be evaluated against the specified parameters/criteria same as in the case of conventional tenders and the technically qualified bidders will be identified. The result of technical bid evaluation will be displayed on the e-market place, which can be seen by all the bidders who participated in the tenders.” Clause 22.1 of the Tender opening and Evaluation : “The tender opening authority may call upon any TENDERER for clarification on the statements, documentary proof relating to the technical bid. The request for clarification and response thereto shall be in writing and it shall be only on the qualification information furnished by the TENDERER. The clarification called for from the TENDERERs shall be furnished within the stipulated time, which shall not be more than a week.” Clause No. vi of the Reverse Tendering Process: “vi. The request for clarification and response thereto shall be in writing and it shall be only on the qualification information furnished by the TENDERER. The clarification called for from the TENDERERs shall be furnished within the stipulated time, which shall not be more than a week.” Clause No. vi of the Reverse Tendering Process: “vi. The Department shall carry out the technical bid evaluation solely based on the uploaded certificates/documents, DD/BG towards EMD/affidavit, in the e-procurement system and open the price bids of the responsive bidders and proceed further for reverse auctioning.” Note 6 (c) of eligibility criteria for opening price bid is as follows: “Details of year wise physical quantities of work executed by the bidder in the last 5 financial years (i.e. from 2018-19 to 2022-23) in Statement-III with supporting certificates.” 29. A bare reading of the above clauses, it is clear that the evaluation shall be done solely based on the uploaded certificates/documents and that the respondents authorities are required to obtain clarification from the tenderer with regard to the uploaded documents only, but not in respect of the documents which the tenderer has omitted to upload. In the present case, petitioner No.1 failed to upload the experience certificate for the work executed shown at Sl.No.4 of the statement uploaded by petitioner No.1. As per the clauses (extracted above) the respondents are not obligated with the duty to seek clarification from petitioner No.1 relating to the document not uploaded by the tenderers. Hence, the contention of petitioner No.1 that the respondents authorities have to seek clarification in respect of the experience certificate pertaining to the work executed shown at Sl.No.4 of the statement uploaded by petitioner No.1, cannot be accepted. 30. As per clause No.4 of special conditions, the contractors shall submit their bids online only and that for any sort of difficulties or the problems in the internet, web site in submission of tenders, the employer is not responsible. As per the said clause, the contractors have to submit their bids along with all documents through online only. In the present case, petitioner No.1 submitted experience certificate for the work executed shown at Sl.No.4 of the statement along with the representation dated 08.05.2023. As per the said clause, the contractors have to submit their bids along with all documents through online only. In the present case, petitioner No.1 submitted experience certificate for the work executed shown at Sl.No.4 of the statement along with the representation dated 08.05.2023. Though petitioner No.1 has submitted the statement showing his experience enclosing all the experience certificates excluding the work shown at Sl.No.4 along with the statement, however, submitted the said experience certificate of Sl.No.4 along with representation dated 08.05.2023, which in fact, cannot be accepted as per clause No.4 of Special Conditions. 31. Further, as per the averments made in the writ petition, the technical bids were opened on 06.05.2023, and on evaluation of the documents uploaded by petitioner No.1, the tender submitted by petitioner No.1 was rejected on the ground that the petitioner has not satisfied the condition relating to minimum quantities in any one financial year during the last five financial years i.e. from 2018-2019 to 2022-2023 by filing requisite documents. Later, petitioner has filed the said document relating to the work shown at Sl.No.4 of the statement along with the representation dated 08.05.2023 i.e. after 3 days of the opening of the bid. Therefore, it can be said that after completion of entire process and allotting the work in favour of respondent No.4, petitioner has made a representation at a belated stage. For the delay caused by petitioner No.1, the entire tender process cannot be cancelled. 32. In “Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651 ” the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “70. It cannot be denied that the principles of judicial review would apply to the exercise of contractual powers by Government bodies in order to prevent arbitrariness or favouritism. However, it must be clearly stated that there are inherent limitations in exercise of that power of judicial review. Government is the guardian of the finances of the State. It is expected to protect the financial interest of the State. The right to refuse the lowest or any other tender is always available to the Government. But, the principles laid down in Article 14 of the Constitution have to be kept in view while accepting or refusing a tender. There can be no question of infringement of Article 14 if the Government tries to get the best person or the best quotation. But, the principles laid down in Article 14 of the Constitution have to be kept in view while accepting or refusing a tender. There can be no question of infringement of Article 14 if the Government tries to get the best person or the best quotation. The right to choose cannot be considered to be an arbitrary power. Of course, if the said power is exercised for any collateral purpose the exercise of that power will be struck down. xx xx xx 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". xx xx xx 94. The principles deducible from the above are: (1) The modern trend points to judicial restraint in administrative action. (2) The court does not sit as a court of appeal but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made. (3) The court does not have the expertise to correct the administrative decision. xx xx xx 94. The principles deducible from the above are: (1) The modern trend points to judicial restraint in administrative action. (2) The court does not sit as a court of appeal but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made. (3) The court does not have the expertise to correct the administrative decision. If a review of the administrative decision is permitted it will be substituting its own decision, without the necessary expertise which itself may be fallible. (4) The terms of the invitation to tender cannot be open to judicial scrutiny because the invitation to tender is in the realm of contract. Normally speaking, the decision to accept the tender or award the contract is reached by process of negotiations through several tiers. More often than not, such decisions are made qualitatively by experts. (5) The Government must have freedom of contract. In other words, a fair play in the joints is a necessary concomitant for an administrative body functioning in an administrative sphere or quasi-administrative sphere. However, the decision must not only be tested by the application of Wednesbury principle of reasonableness (including its other facts pointed out above) but must be free from arbitrariness not affected by bias or actuated by mala fides. (6) Quashing decisions may impose heavy administrative burden on the administration and lead to increased and un-budgeted expenditure.” 33. The Hon’ble Apex Court sounded a word of caution in another judgment reported as “Silppi Constructions Contractors Vs. Union of India and Others., 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1133”, wherein it was held that the Courts must realize their limitations and the havoc which needless interference in commercial matters could cause. In contracts involving technical issues, the Courts should be even more reluctant because most of us in judges' robes do not have the necessary expertise to adjudicate upon technical issues beyond our domain. The Courts should not use a magnifying glass while scanning the tenders and make every small mistake appear like a big blunder. In fact, the courts must give "fair play in the joints" to the government and public sector undertakings in matters of contract. Courts must also not interfere where such interference would cause unnecessary loss to the public exchequer. It was held as under: 19. This Court being the guardian of fundamental rights is duty bound to interfere when there is arbitrariness, irrationality, mala fides and bias. Courts must also not interfere where such interference would cause unnecessary loss to the public exchequer. It was held as under: 19. This Court being the guardian of fundamental rights is duty bound to interfere when there is arbitrariness, irrationality, mala fides and bias. However, this Court in all the aforesaid decisions has cautioned time and again that courts should exercise a lot of restraint while exercising their powers of judicial review in contractual or commercial matters. This Court is normally loathe to interfere in contractual matters unless a clear-cut case of arbitrariness or mala fides or bias or irrationality is made out. One must remember that today many public sector undertakings compete with the private industry. The contracts entered into between private parties are not subject to scrutiny under writ jurisdiction. No doubt, the bodies which are State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution are bound to act fairly and are amenable to the writ jurisdiction of superior courts, but this discretionary power must be exercised with a great deal of restraint and caution. The Courts must realize their limitations and the havoc which needless interference in commercial matters can cause. In contracts involving technical issues the courts should be even more reluctant because most of us in judges' robes do not have the necessary expertise to adjudicate upon technical issues beyond our domain. As laid down in the judgments cited above the courts should not use a magnifying glass while scanning the tenders and make every small mistake appear like a big blunder. In fact, the courts must give "fair play in the joints" to the government and public sector undertakings in matters of contract. Courts must also not interfere where such interference will cause unnecessary loss to the public exchequer. 20. The essence of the law laid down in the judgments referred to above is the exercise of restraint and caution; the need for overwhelming public interest to justify judicial intervention in matters of contract involving the state instrumentalities; the courts should give way to the opinion of the experts unless the decision is totally arbitrary or unreasonable; the court does not sit like a court of appeal over the appropriate authority; the court must realize that the authority floating the tender is the best judge of its requirements and, therefore, the court's interference should be minimal. The authority which floats the contract or tender and has authored the tender documents is the best judge as to how the documents have to be interpreted. If two interpretations are possible then the interpretation of the author must be accepted. The courts will only interfere to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, bias, mala fides or perversity. With this approach in mind, we shall deal with the present case. (Emphasis supplied) 34. In “Uflex Ltd. v. Government of T.N., (2022) 1 SCC 165 ”, this Court stated that the enlarged role of the Government in economic activity and its corresponding ability to give economic "largesse" was the bedrock of creating what is commonly called the "tender jurisdiction". The objective was to have greater transparency and the consequent right of an aggrieved party to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India beyond the issue of strict enforcement of contractual rights under the civil jurisdiction. However, the ground reality today is that almost no tender remains unchallenged. Unsuccessful parties or parties not even participating in the tender seek to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court Under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court held as under: “The judicial review of such contractual matters has its own limitations. It is in this context of judicial review of administrative actions that this Court has opined that it is intended to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, bias and mala fides. The purpose is to check whether the choice of decision is made lawfully and not to check whether the choice of decision is sound. In evaluating tenders and awarding contracts, the parties are to be governed by principles of commercial prudence. To that extent, principles of equity and natural justice have to stay at a distance. [Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa (2007) 14 SCC 517 ]” 35. In “Galaxy Transport Agencies v. New J.K. Roadways, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1035”, a three-judge bench again reiterated that the authority that authors the tender document is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements, and thus, its interpretation should not be second-guessed by a court in judicial review proceedings. 36. In “Galaxy Transport Agencies v. New J.K. Roadways, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1035”, a three-judge bench again reiterated that the authority that authors the tender document is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements, and thus, its interpretation should not be second-guessed by a court in judicial review proceedings. 36. Therefore, the position of law with regard to the interpretation of terms of the contract is that the question as to whether a term of the contract is essential or not is to be viewed from the perspective of the employer and by the employer. 37. Learned Government Pleader relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “M/s.N.G.Projects Limited Vs. M/s. Vinod Kumar Jain and others” (referred supra). In the facts of the said judgment, the Road Construction Department of Jharkhand invited tenders on 7.6.2019 for reconstruction of Nagaruntari - Dhurki - Ambakhoriya Road. Respondent No. 1 participated in the tender process and also submitted Bank Guarantee as bid security but such tender was cancelled on 20.8.2019 and fresh Notice Inviting Tender (for short “NIT”) was invited for reconstruction of the said Nagaruntari - Dhurki - Ambakhoriya road. The Tender Evaluation Committee held a meeting for technical evaluation of bids and 13 out of 15 bids were held to be non-responsive in terms of Standard Bidding Document (for short “SBD”), including that of Respondent No. 1. The reason for arriving at such conclusion was that Respondent No.1 therein submitted a letter along with the amended Bank Guarantee to the effect that such letter forms an integral part of Bank Guarantee. Such Bank Guarantee was not in the format as prescribed in the SBD. It was also found that the Bank Guarantee was valid from 8.7.2019 to 7.3.2020, which was prior to the date on which NIT was issued on 20.8.2019, apart from the fact that the amount mentioned in numerical and in words were different. The technical bid of the appellant therein was declared to be substantially responsive and after due evaluation of its financial bid, work contract was issued to the Appellant on 3.10.2019. The Appellant started the work on the stipulated date of commencement on 22.10.2019 and completed earth work for 21.9 kms out of the 24 kms proposed road. As per the appellant, it had completed work of approximately Rs. 8.5 crores and had mobilized the plants and machinery to Garwa. The Appellant started the work on the stipulated date of commencement on 22.10.2019 and completed earth work for 21.9 kms out of the 24 kms proposed road. As per the appellant, it had completed work of approximately Rs. 8.5 crores and had mobilized the plants and machinery to Garwa. Aggrieved by the same, respondent No.1 therein filed a Writ Petition on 11.10.2019 for quashing of the decision of the Technical Evaluation Committee holding its bid to be nonresponsive. After the pleadings were completed, the learned Single Bench of the High Court passed a common order in respect of two other works and the work in question on 14.1.2020, setting aside award of contract granted to the Appellant. The learned Single Bench of the High Court passed the following directions: “48. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, all the writ petitions are disposed of by passing following orders: (i) xx xx xx (ii) The decision of the Tender Committee dated 3rd October, 2019, for the work, namely, "Reconstruction of Nagaruntari-Dhurki-Ambakhoriya Road (MDR-139)" in relation to W.P.(C) No. 5416 of 2019 is hereby quashed. All the consequential action of the State Respondents taken in relation to the said tender including the award of the tender in favour of the private Respondent - M/s. N.G. Projects Limited is also quashed. The State Respondents are directed to issue fresh tender for the said work and to proceed accordingly.” 38. In facts of the said judgment, the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed two appeals against two other tenders on 7.10.2021. However, in appeal against the work in question, the Division Bench of the High Court noticed the fact that the Appellant had already started the execution of the work and that part of the work had already completed but held that there was no valid distinction with the case of other two works against which Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed on 7.10.2021. The Division Bench of the High Court returned the following findings: “Having analyzed the reasonings rendered by the learned Single Judge in the conspicuous facts of the case, we are of the view that the decision of the tender evaluation committee in accepting the technical bid of the successful tenderer M/s. N.G. Projects Limited while rejecting the technical bid of the Petitioner did not conform to uniform standards as professed by it. The selection of one and rejection of another was neither in consonance with the specific terms of the NIT and SBD read with the addendum, nor was on uniform yardstick.” 39. In “M/s.N.G.Projects Limited Vs. M/s. Vinod Kumar Jain and others” (referred supra), after referring to its earlier judgments in “Tata Cellular v. Union of India” “Silppi Constructions Contractors Vs. Union of India and Others.”, “Uflex Ltd. v. Government of T.N.”, In “Galaxy Transport Agencies v. New J.K. Roadways”, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows: “21.Since the construction of road is an infrastructure project and keeping in view the intent of the legislature that infrastructure projects should not be stayed, the High Court would have been well advised to hold its hand to stay the construction of the infrastructure project. Such provision should be kept in view even by the Writ Court while exercising its jurisdiction Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 22. The satisfaction whether a bidder satisfies the tender condition is primarily upon the authority inviting the bids. Such authority is aware of expectations from the tenderers while evaluating the consequences of non-performance. In the tender in question, there were 15 bidders. Bids of 13 tenderers were found to be unresponsive i.e., not satisfying the tender conditions. The writ Petitioner was one of them. It is not the case of the writ Petitioner that action of the Technical Evaluation Committee was actuated by extraneous considerations or was malafide. Therefore, on the same set of facts, different conclusions can be arrived at in a bona-fide manner by the Technical Evaluation Committee. Since the view of the Technical Evaluation Committee was not to the liking of the writ Petitioner, such decision does not warrant for interference in a grant of contract to a successful bidder. 23. In view of the above judgments of this Court, the Writ Court should refrain itself from imposing its decision over the decision of the employer as to whether or not to accept the bid of a tenderer. The Court does not have the expertise to examine the terms and conditions of the present-day economic activities of the State and this limitation should be kept in view. Courts should be even more reluctant in interfering with contracts involving technical issues as there is a requirement of the necessary expertise to adjudicate upon such issues. The Court does not have the expertise to examine the terms and conditions of the present-day economic activities of the State and this limitation should be kept in view. Courts should be even more reluctant in interfering with contracts involving technical issues as there is a requirement of the necessary expertise to adjudicate upon such issues. The approach of the Court should be not to find fault with magnifying glass in its hands, rather the Court should examine as to whether the decision-making process is after complying with the procedure contemplated by the tender conditions. If the Court finds that there is total arbitrariness or that the tender has been granted in a malafide manner, still the Court should refrain from interfering in the grant of tender but instead relegate the parties to seek damages for the wrongful exclusion rather than to injunct the execution of the contract. The injunction or interference in the tender leads to additional costs on the State and is also against public interest. Therefore, the State and its citizens suffer twice, firstly by paying escalation costs and secondly, by being deprived of the infrastructure for which the present-day Governments are expected to work.” 40. The law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in “M/s.N.G.Projects Limited Vs. M/s. Vinod Kumar Jain and others” (referred supra) is squarely applicable to the present facts of the case as the satisfaction whether a bidder satisfies the tender condition is primarily upon the authority inviting the bids. In the instant case, technical bids were opened on 06.05.2023, but petitioner No.1 submitted representation on 08.05.2023 i.e. three days after completion of process. Moreover, the work has been entrusted to respondent No.4. Moreover, it is not the case of the writ petitioner that the action of the technical evaluation committee was actuated by extraneous considerations or was malafide. The interference of this Court in the tender process leads to additional costs on the State and is also against public interest. Therefore, the State and its citizens suffer twice, firstly by paying escalation costs and secondly, by being deprived of the infrastructure for which the State is expected to work. Further, cancellation of tender process would cause additional financial burden on the State and also deprive the amenity of road for a longer period. Moreover, for the mistake done by petitioner No.1, the entire tender process cannot be cancelled. 41. Further, cancellation of tender process would cause additional financial burden on the State and also deprive the amenity of road for a longer period. Moreover, for the mistake done by petitioner No.1, the entire tender process cannot be cancelled. 41. Further, I do not find any perversity, patent illegality or irrationality in the decision making process of the respondents in finalizing the tenders and allotting the work to respondent No.4. Therefore, writ petition No.13821 of 2023 is liable to be dismissed. 42. In view of my aforesaid discussion and as the tender process is completed, W.P.No.13590 of 2023, which was filed to declare the action of respondent No.3 in disqualifying technical bids, vide Proceedings Lr.No.NABARD/W&S of R-A road/Evaluation/NRT/AEEZ/2022, dated 15.05.2023 submitted by the petitioners in response to the Tender ID:604508, NIT No.SE/R&B/NABARD/GNT/50/2022-23 dated 27.03.2023 as illegal and arbitrary, is also liable to be dismissed. 43. Therefore, W.P.No.13821 of 2023 with respect to petitioner No.1 is dismissed on merits. W.P.No.13821 of 2023 is dismissed as not pressed insofar as petitioner No.2 is concerned. 44. Accordingly, W.P.Nos.13821 and 13590 of 2023 are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in the Writ Petitions, shall stand closed.