JUDGMENT : UMESH A. TRIVEDI, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying for quashing impugned decision of the respondent dated 08.01.2024, whereby proposal of the petitioner pursuant to a Tender No. GMDC/TPD/007/23-24 for Lakhpath Lignite Block did not meet with the guidelines specified in the Request For Proposal (hereinafter referred to as “RFP document”, for short), held to be ineligible for further rounds and Earnest Money Deposit (hereinafter referred to as “EMD”, for short) submitted by the petitioner was told to be disbursed as per guidelines specified in the “RFP document”. 2. The respondent – Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “GMDC”, for short) issued notice inviting tender and “RFP document” for seeking lignite mining contractors on turn-key basis at Kutch, on 02.08.2023. 2.1 Pursuant to the said tender notice, a pre-bid meeting of prospective bidders convened on 06.09.2023 to consider and deal with resolution of queries that may be raised by the prospective bidders. To the queries raised by different bidders, it was resolved and opined by the respondent herein and all the prospective bidders were communicated, where respondent shared corrigendum No. 2 and its related documents through link at the e-mail addresses of all the prospective bidders, including the representative of the petitioner Company – Sunny Vishwakarma, deponent of the petition, who attended the pre-bid meeting as well. 2.2 Last date for submission of tender was 03.10.2023, which was extended up to 02.11.2023. The petitioner, pursuant to the said notice, submitted the tender on the last date i.e. 02.11.2023. In all seven bidders participated in the tender process. 2.3 Technical bids were opened on 02.11.2023 at 5:00 p.m.. Thereafter, evaluation of technical bids was undertaken by the respondent. On evaluation of the technical bid of the petitioner, since it was not found to meet with the guidelines specified in “RFP document”, petitioner was held to be ineligible for further rounds vide communication dated 08.01.2024 communicated to the petitioner through e-mail, which is produced by petitioner at page 33. Thereafter, on 12.01.2024, price bids were opened and reverse auction in between eligible bidders undertaken. Reverse bid to further reduce price was undertaken inter-se amongst all eligible bidders. By that date, lowest bidder could be identified. Thereafter, on 27.01.2024, “EMD” of the petitioner was returned, for which there is no dispute. 3. Heard Ms. Thereafter, on 12.01.2024, price bids were opened and reverse auction in between eligible bidders undertaken. Reverse bid to further reduce price was undertaken inter-se amongst all eligible bidders. By that date, lowest bidder could be identified. Thereafter, on 27.01.2024, “EMD” of the petitioner was returned, for which there is no dispute. 3. Heard Ms. Amrita Panda, learned advocate, with Mr. Tirth N. Bhatt, learned advocate for the petitioner. 3.1 According to her submission, the impugned communication dated 08.01.2024 holding petitioner ineligible is without assigning any reasons. 3.2 It is submitted that after receipt of the impugned order through e-mail dated 08.01.2024, the petitioner through e-mail dated 19.01.2024 requested detailed clarification and grounds on the basis of which its technical bid had been deemed ineligible but it has not yet been responded to. Since there was no response to the said communication, again an e-mail dated 30.01.2024 reiterating the contents of its earlier e-mail requesting authority’s prompt and comprehensive response so as to resolve the issue immediately, but it is also of no avail to the petitioner. 3.3 She has further submitted that as now law evolved, every executive/administrative action should be supported with reasons so as to know why petitioner is held to be ineligible. 3.4 It is further submitted that petitioner is kept in dark holding him ineligible for the tender and whole process is concluded after communicating in one line that he is held to be ineligible, without assigning any reason. Carrying further the submission on the ground that impugned order being unreasoned, it is submitted that fresh reasons cannot be supplied by way of filing an affidavit-in-reply when order is challenged on that ground. It is submitted that reason should be assigned in the order of disqualification itself. 3.5 In support of her said submission, she has relied on a decision of this Court in the case of Adani Ports And Special Economic Zone Limited v. Deendayal Port Trust, rendered in SCA No. 20161 of 2021 dated 05.04.2022, more particularly para 50 thereof, for a proposition that recording of reasons for executive actions including cases of rejection of highest offers and looking for reasons in support of such action provides an opportunity for an objective review in appropriate cases both by administrative superior and by the judicial process. 3.6 Reading further paras 51 to 54, it is submitted that for ascertaining the decision making process holding petitioner ineligible for the further rounds of tender, as to whether it is just, reasonable or examined it on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, decision has to be supported with reasons in itself. 3.7 Drawing attention of the Court to the communication dated 08.01.2024, it is submitted that the said communication lacks reasons in support of the decision. 3.8 Drawing attention of the Court to page 35 of the petition, which is “RFP document” for seeking lignite mining contractors on turn-key basis at Kutch, more particularly page 53 thereof, wherein clause 7.8 of the said document titled as ‘Evaluation of Technical Proposal’ and clause 8 specifying ‘Qualifying Criteria’, it is submitted that the bid submitted by the petitioner was as per the requirement of the respondent and fulfilling all the requirements therein, either it may be for qualifying criteria and meeting with all the criteria’s mentioned in technical proposal to be eligible bidders. 3.9 She has further submitted that petitioner has given declaration apropos to clause 8.11 of “RFP document” in Form-'J' of the tender document and once given that declaration in that format, there shall not be any disqualification. Reading clause 8.11 at page 60 of the petition, it is submitted that, as per the requirement of declaration in Form-'J', either the bidder or any member of Consortium and/or its Directors have not been blacklisted by ‘the Central Government’ or ‘the State Government’ or ‘its undertakings’ in preceding 3 years from the date of uploading Notice Inviting Tender (hereinafter referred to as “NIT”, for short) 3.10 She has submitted that such declaration in Form-'J' is already furnished by the petitioner. According to her submission, once that declaration is in respect of not being blacklisted by 'the Central Government’ or 'the State Government’ or 'its undertakings’, means by the State of Gujarat only and not by any other State Government or its undertakings. 3.11 Drawing attention of the Court to various clauses of the “RFP document” and “NIT”, it is submitted that wherever respondent intended ‘’any’’ State Government, it has been specifically mentioned in its clauses. 3.11 Drawing attention of the Court to various clauses of the “RFP document” and “NIT”, it is submitted that wherever respondent intended ‘’any’’ State Government, it has been specifically mentioned in its clauses. 3.12 Drawing attention of the Court to para 11 at page 14 of the petition, it is submitted that in clause 5 at page 44 of the petition under the head ‘Applicable Laws’, it is specifically mentioned that:- “applicable laws shall mean all laws, brought into force and effect by Government of India or the Government of any State or local body...” Further, in sub-clause (13) of clause 10.20 of general conditions at page 85 of the petition, which reads as under:- “in case of any Central/State Government directives regarding mining operation and execution of work...” 3.13 Similarly, in sub-clause (3) of clause 9.11 under the head ‘lighting’ at page 69 of the petition, it is submitted that the NIT specifically states that :- “...the power and light connections, wiring equipment, etc....the authorities of Central Government under the Electricity Act and Indian Electricity Rules, subject to conditions of electricity supply by the State electricity authority or any Act or law applicable with change suggested from time to time”. Therefore, it is submitted that the intention of the respondent to mention “The State” instead of ‘any State Government’ or ‘its undertakings’, as it had done in other clause of the “NIT” is a conscious decision and had been done to limit disclosure of information on blacklisting within the State of Gujarat. 3.14 It is submitted that technical criteria as also financial criterias have been fulfilled by the petitioner, and therefore, it could not have been disqualified. It is further submitted that petitioner cannot be faced with the consequence, which is not stipulated in the “NIT”. 3.15 It is further submitted that since petitioner has fulfilled and complied with all the qualification criterias, it could not have been held to be ineligible to participate in the tender. It is vehemently submitted that clause 8.11 came to be amended pursuant to a pre-bid meeting of prospective bidders and corrigendum is also issued, no suitable amendment in Form-'J' is made. It is vehemently submitted that clause 8.11 came to be amended pursuant to a pre-bid meeting of prospective bidders and corrigendum is also issued, no suitable amendment in Form-'J' is made. Therefore, it is submitted that if petitioner has filed declaration in Form-'J', mentioning not only declaration with regard to it being not blacklisted but debarred, banned or put on holiday list is also mentioned in it, it cannot be termed as declaration not filed in format Form-'J' and it could not have been disqualified on that ground from participating in further rounds of the tender process. 3.16 It is further submitted that though impugned communication dated 08.01.2024 does not say that it is disqualified, even in affidavit-in-reply, it is not asserted that petitioner has made any false representation. It is submitted that petitioner cannot be penalized for giving wide declaration in format Form-'J', when it includes no blacklisting, debarment, banned or put on holidays, which may not be as per existing Form-'J', petitioner cannot be disqualified and it can never be a reason for disqualification when wide declaration is furnished fulfilling the requirement under amended clause 8.11. 3.17 It is further submitted that debarment order passed by West Bengal Mineral Development & Trading Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as “WBMDTCL”, for short) is already challenged before Calcutta High Court and when it passed an interim order, precluding it from participating in any tender invited by Government of West Bengal or any of the Government organizations, Public Sector Undertakings or Quasi-governmental concerns of the State of West Bengal, it will not debar petitioner from participating in any tender of other states. 3.18 Relying on a decision in the case of M/s. Baroda Surgical (India) Private Limited v. State of Gujarat, rendered in SCA No. 23050 of 2019 dated 10.02.2020, more particularly para 12 to 15, it is submitted that, intention of the authority providing terms of tender can be gathered from the different clauses, which is a part of tender conditions. 3.18 Relying on a decision in the case of M/s. Baroda Surgical (India) Private Limited v. State of Gujarat, rendered in SCA No. 23050 of 2019 dated 10.02.2020, more particularly para 12 to 15, it is submitted that, intention of the authority providing terms of tender can be gathered from the different clauses, which is a part of tender conditions. Interpreting different clauses of “NIT” in that case, Division Bench of this Court held that when the party wanted the bidder to disclose whether he has not been banned/ debarred/blacklisted by any Government Department/State Government, it has specifically so provided by prefixing the "Government Department/State Government" with the word "any", which is not so in that other clause of Annexure-IV therein, which states about pendency of a criminal case by State Government and its Board corporation, is interpreted to be referring to the State of Gujarat as it was related to interpreting format of affidavit as provided therein in respect of disclosure of pendency of criminal proceedings filed against petitioner therein. 3.19 Interpreting the different clauses of the “NIT” in that case, non-disclosure by the petitioner therein about criminal prosecution filed by the State other than State of Gujarat, held to be due compliance as required in Annexure-IV, and therefore, on that ground, decision of the authority disqualifying the petitioner therein on the ground that filing of a criminal prosecution by State other than Gujarat is suppressed, held to be illegal. 3.20 Relying on the decision in the case of Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India and Ors., reported in 1979 (3) SCC 489 , more particularly para 7 thereof, it is submitted that Court should not be prompt to ascribe superfluity to the language of a document and should be rather at the outset inclined to suppose every word intended to have some effect or be of some use. Based on the same, it is submitted that despite in a pre-bid meeting, a specific query was raised with regard to permitting if any bidder is blacklisted/banned/debarred by some other company and will “GMDC” allow that bidder for participation and specific answer by the authority in clear terms was “no”, and corrigendum issued subsequent to pre-bid meeting amending certain clauses, there is no amendment to the words ‘the Central Government’ or 'the State Government’ or 'its undertakings’ in clause 8.11, which prompted the petitioner to participate in this tender process presuming respondent to have waived such objection, which was there at pre-bid stage with no corresponding amendment to add word “any” instead of article “the” before Central Government and State Government in clause 8.11. 3.21 It is further submitted that if at all respondent intended not to permit any bidder, who is blacklisted/banned/barred by other State or its undertakings, no one prevented them from so stating in disqualification clause 8.11 as prefix to word ‘the Central Government’ or 'the State Government’ or 'its undertakings’. 3.22 Ms. Amrita Panda, learned advocate for the petitioner, relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Caretel Infotech Ltd. v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited & Ors., reported in (2019) 14 SCC 81 for a proposition that unless consequences are stipulated under “NIT”/”RFP document”, petitioner cannot be met with those consequences, referring para 22 and 23 thereof. She has further submitted that petitioner has not made any misleading or false representation in the forms, statements, affidavits and attachments submitted in proof of qualification requirement, and therefore, according to her submission, petitioner could not have been disqualified, that too, preventing it from participating further in the rounds. On the aforesaid submissions, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petition be allowed and petitioner be permitted to participate in the subject tender dated 02.08.2023 by quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 08.01.2024, whereby petitioner is held to be ineligible for further rounds of tender. 4. As against that, Mr. On the aforesaid submissions, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petition be allowed and petitioner be permitted to participate in the subject tender dated 02.08.2023 by quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 08.01.2024, whereby petitioner is held to be ineligible for further rounds of tender. 4. As against that, Mr. Gursharansingh H. Virk, learned advocate for the respondent, after giving detailed account of dates and events submitted that the impugned communication dated 08.01.2024 holding petitioner ineligible for further rounds as its proposal does not meet with the guidelines specified in the “RFP document”, no attempts were ever made to challenge the said decision, if at all it is contrary to the law or terms of tender, before this Court and permitted the further process of tender be continued, and petition filed belatedly may not be entertained. 4.1 It is further submitted that even reverse auction inter-se between qualified bidders took place on 12.01.2024 and lowest bidder identified, the Earnest Money Deposit of the petitioner having been returned on 27.01.2024, the present petition has come to be filed more than one month thereafter, i.e. after receipt of “EMD”, which is not disputed at all by the petitioner, cannot be entertained at a crucial stage. 4.2 Drawing attention of the Court to the attendance-sheet of pre-bid meeting convened before the submission of tender by the prospective bidders, where the present deponent of the petition – Sunny Vishwakarma, was present in a pre-bid meeting and in token thereof, he has signed the said attendance-sheet, which is at page 165 Serial No. 3 thereof of Dhansar Engineering Company Private Limited. The very deponent of the petition on behalf of Dhansar Engineering Company Private Limited raised a query as under:- “If any bidder is blacklisted/banned/debarred by some other company, will GMDC allowed that bidder for participation ? Moreover, Form-'J' is a declaration for not being blacklisted, what if someone is banned, debarred, etc.” The response from “GMDC” is also mentioned in the summary of queries at page 167 of the petition, as under:- “No, GMDC will not allow the bidder who is blacklisted/banned/debarred by any State/Central PSUs. Moreover, Form-'J' is a declaration for not being blacklisted, what if someone is banned, debarred, etc.” The response from “GMDC” is also mentioned in the summary of queries at page 167 of the petition, as under:- “No, GMDC will not allow the bidder who is blacklisted/banned/debarred by any State/Central PSUs. Please refer to the corrigendums in this regard.” Thus, according to the submission of learned advocate for the respondent, despite petitioner was specifically answered that they would not be permitted if blacklisted/debarred/put on holidays by any State/Central PSUs, petitioner did not file any proceedings despite such intention made clear prior to submission of bids. 4.3 Not only that, petitioner participated in the tender without challenging the tender conditions or the tendering process before the last date of submission of bids, after submission of bids and for a period of more than 50 days after it was clearly informed, on 08.01.2024, holding petitioner to be ineligible for further rounds that it has got disqualified. 4.4 Drawing attention of the Court to the various clauses of the tender terms and bid submitted by the petitioner along with the documents annexed with it, it is submitted that there is material suppression by the petitioner and on that ground alone, the petition should be dismissed. It is submitted that despite the deponent of the petitioner attended pre-bid meeting and raised a specific query with regard to participation of a bidder, who is blacklisted/banned by other State would be permitted, and when it was replied that, no, it would not be permitted, no such facts are so stated in the petition and it has been suppressed by the petitioner. 4.5 It is further submitted that from their very answer, according to the submission of learned advocate for the respondent, intention of the respondent was very clear that person, who is blacklisted/banned by any State or Central PSUs will not be permitted to participate, as per the terms of contract in the present bid. 4.6 It is further submitted that all the participants of pre-bid meet were supplied with the summary of e-queries raised by the bidders during the pre-bid meeting held on 06.09.2023 through e-mail and response of the respondents by way of corrigendum - 02 introduced to the “RFP document” and informed to all the prospective bidders, who participated in pre-bid meeting. This is also not disclosed by the petitioner in its petition. This is also not disclosed by the petitioner in its petition. 4.7 It is further submitted, drawing attention of the Court to page 99, which is Form-’C3’, wherein details of contractor is asked for and as per that requirement, blacklisting in past of a partners or directors of the applicant – bidder by any Government or any other body is required to be disclosed by the bidder. Therefore, it is submitted that the intention of the respondent authority was very clear providing terms of contract that bidder, who is blacklisted/banned/put on holidays list by any Government or any other body, is not to be considered for awarding of a contract. If this requirement in Form-’C3’ is considered, according to the submission of the learned advocate for the respondent, a specific declaration in Form-’J’ was asked for that a prospective bidder is not blacklisted by 'the Central Government’ or 'the State Government’ or 'its undertakings’ and any false representation or misleading representation in the forms, statements or affidavits and attachments in proof of the qualification required would entail disqualification. He, therefore, drew attention of the Court to the filled-in Form-’C3’, which is at page 192 of the compilation along with the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent, where it is disclosed that Consortium member was barred by the “WBMDTCL”. However, it is qualified with a statement that “they have received stay order from the High Court of West Bengal for the stay.” 4.8 It is further submitted that though the said order is referred therein, copy was not supplied along with either Form-’C3’ or with the whole tender document. It is submitted that respondent, on the contrary, called for the stay order if any, as narrated in Form-’C3’, to which what was supplied is the order referred to and relied on by the learned advocate for the petitioner, which is part of compilation at page 136. According to the submission of learned advocate for the respondent, it is no stay order at all, as sought to be conveyed by the petitioner, that too, when supplying copy thereof along with the tender document. It is further submitted that Form-’J’, as required, though submitted with Annexure-A, which is not the requirement of the respondent authority at all, is also not produced with the petition. It is further submitted that Form-’J’, as required, though submitted with Annexure-A, which is not the requirement of the respondent authority at all, is also not produced with the petition. 4.9 Drawing attention of the Court to filled in Form-’J’ by the petitioner, which is, according to him, as such not in the format and even Annexure-A to the Form-’J’ annexed is also not the requirement of Form-’J’. However, according to his submission, there is no stay order granted against an order of blacklisting/debarment of the Consortium partner of the petitioner, and therefore, it would amount to misleading or false representation in forms, as enumerated in clause 8.7 of the “RFP document”, and therefore, petitioner is disqualified on that ground alone, which entailed communication dated 08.01.2024 holding it to be not eligible for further rounds of tender process. 4.10 Drawing attention of the Court to the order blacklisting/debarring Consortium partner of the petitioner dated 31.05.2023, which is within preceding 3 years, as mentioned in the tender document by “WBMDTCL”, which is annexed with the reply at page 186, it is pointed out that, that Consortium partner suppressed before “WBMDTCL”, order of blacklisting/debarment passed by Western Coalfields Limited and that was the cause for blacklisting/debarring the Consortium partner by “WBMDTCL”, which is again suppressed in this petition. 4.11 It is further submitted that petitioner, with an open eye, filled-in Form-’K’ provided under tender document, a declaration regarding unconditional acceptance of all the terms and conditions of the tender document, which is produced at page 203 with the affidavit-in-reply. The said declaration and acceptance of the terms and conditions read along with filled-in bid by the petitioner along with disqualification clause, it discloses that misleading and false representation with regard to blacklisting/debarment of its Consortium partner can be said to have been made, when it is claimed that the blacklisting order is stayed, whereas it is found to be the other way round. Therefore, according to the submission of learned advocate for the respondent, even if the petitioner meets with eligibility or qualifying criteria, for making false representation or misleading representation in the bid, it incurs disqualification, and therefore, communication dated 08.01.2024 is rightly communicated to it holding ineligible for further rounds of the process. Therefore, according to the submission of learned advocate for the respondent, even if the petitioner meets with eligibility or qualifying criteria, for making false representation or misleading representation in the bid, it incurs disqualification, and therefore, communication dated 08.01.2024 is rightly communicated to it holding ineligible for further rounds of the process. 4.12 It is further submitted that the “EMD” furnished by the petitioner is also returned to it on 27.01.2024, receipt of the same is not disputed by it, the said act is also not disclosed in the petition. Therefore, it is submitted that considering all material facts, this petition be rejected. 4.13 Dealing with the decision relied on by the learned advocate for the petitioner in the case of Adani Ports (Supra), it is submitted that the very Bench, which determined it, has clarified in the decision in the case of Cube Construction Engineering Ltd. v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, rendered in Special Civil Application No. 5992 of 2022 dated 21.04.2022 in para 39 at page 147 of the compilation of Judgments furnished by the learned advocate for the respondent herein. Reading para 39 of the said judgment, it is submitted that in Adani Ports (Supra), Court had noticed that disqualification was not a disqualification simpliciter but it would be disqualifying the bidder from participating in any future bids for a period of two years and this swayed in the mind of this Court to arrive at a conclusion that in circumstances which would result in flowing of civil consequences, such rejection should be made by a reasoned order. Therefore, according to the submission of the learned advocate for the respondent, reliance on the case of Adani Ports (Supra) cannot be placed, as submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner, for a proposition that impugned order disqualifying the petitioner is unreasoned. 4.14 Relying on a decision in the case of Silppi Constructions Contractors v. Union of India and Anr., reported in (2020) 16 SCC 489 , more particularly para 25 thereof, it is submitted that administrative decisions are in the realm of contract. While rejecting the tender the person or authority inviting the tenders is not required to give reasons even if it be a state within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution as these decisions are neither judicial nor quasijudicial. While rejecting the tender the person or authority inviting the tenders is not required to give reasons even if it be a state within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution as these decisions are neither judicial nor quasijudicial. 4.15 Further reliance is placed on a decision of this Court in the case of Montecarlo Limited & anr. v. Gujarat Rail Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (G-Ride), rendered in SCA No. 6767 of 2021 dated 22.07.2021, more particularly para 49 thereof, that the employer of a project, having authored the tender documents, is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements and interpret its documents. The Court must, as far as possible, avoid a construction which would render the words used by the author of the tender document meaningless and futile. 4.16 A decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Uflex Ltd. v. Government of Tamil Nadu and others , reported in 2022 (1) SCC 165 , to contend that the objective is not to make the Court an appellate authority for scrutinizing as to whom the tender should be awarded. Economics must be permitted to play its role for which the tendering authority knows best as to what is suited in terms of technology and price for them. 4.17 A decision in the case of K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Ors., reported in (2008) 12 SCC 481, more particularly para 34 of it, to submit that party must approach the Writ Courts with clean hands, put forward all the facts before the Court without concealing or suppressing anything and seek an appropriate relief. In the aforesaid submissions, relying on the aforesaid decisions, it is submitted that the petition does not merit acceptance and it be rejected, if not with exemplary cost, with appropriate cost. 5. Having heard the learned advocates for the appearing parties and going through the petition and its annexures as also the precedents cited at the bar by the parties, it emerges that petitioner, who participated in pre-bid meeting raising specific query with regard to order of blacklisting by any State or its undertaking would be permitted to participate in the tender process and firm answered in “No”, which is made part of the tender condition as corrigendum – 02 before submission of bids. It did not challenge the decision prior to the participation nor immediately after the participation in the bidding process. 5.1 Not only that, despite service of a decision by way of communication dated 08.01.2024 through e-mail informing clearly its proposal doesn't meet the guidelines specified in the “RFP document” and holding it to be ineligible for further rounds, it did not thought it fit to challenge the same. If not immediately on that day or within reasonable time. 5.2 Furthermore, as coming out from the submission of learned advocate for the respondent, which is not disputed at all, “EMD” furnished by the petitioner is returned back on 27.01.2024, i.e. after about 19 days of the communication holding it to be disqualified and as a consequence not eligible for further rounds of tender process, petition for the first time, challenging that communication came to be affirmed only on 27.02.2024, and filed it before the Registry on that very day, which was examined and registered on 29.02.2024. Therefore, even after acceptance of “EMD”, which is returned back to it, after about nearly one month, petition came to be filed challenging the decision disqualifying it, holding ineligible for further rounds. 5.3 For decision of this case, wherein dates, which may be relevant, be referred to herein as under:- On 02.08.2023, notice inviting the tender in question came to be issued. Pursuant to it, a pre-bid meeting of prospective bidders came to be convened on 06.09.2023 and participants thereof, which includes deponent of the present petition, raised very particular query with regard to participation in the tender process of the petitioner whose Consortium partner is blacklisted in any other State or its undertakings replied that they would not be permitted to participate if it is blacklisted/banned/debarred by any State/Central Government PSUs. After the pre-bid meeting, the summary of it with regard to queries raised and response from respondent was communicated to all the prospective bidders through e-mail on 16.10.2023. Though, initially the first date for submission of tender was 03.10.2023, it came to be extended up to 02.11.2023. The petitioner in the present case, submitted its tender on the last date i.e. 02.11.2023. In all, seven bidders participated and technical bid came to be opened on that very day i.e. on 02.11.2023. Though, initially the first date for submission of tender was 03.10.2023, it came to be extended up to 02.11.2023. The petitioner in the present case, submitted its tender on the last date i.e. 02.11.2023. In all, seven bidders participated and technical bid came to be opened on that very day i.e. on 02.11.2023. On scrutiny of document in the case of the petitioner, when qualified Form-’J’ with Annexure-A, which is not prescribed format, submitted as also Form-’C3’, it was noticed that Consortium partner of petitioner was blacklisted/debarred by “WBMDTCL” and it was claimed that the said order of blacklisting is stayed, without furnishing copy of the order of competent Court with the bid, the respondent vide communication dated 28.12.2023 sought for a copy of stay order, as mentioned in Form-’C3’ by the petitioner. The said communication made by the respondent to the petitioner is also not even referred to in the petition itself and that part is suppressed by the petitioner. Not only that, even specific query raised by the deponent of the petitioner with regard to participation of it when Consortium partner is blacklisted/debarred in any other State was raised and it was answered in no, even that part is also not referred to in the petition itself and it is suppressed. 5.4 Though the petitioner submitted its reply to the e-mail dated 28.12.2023 seeking copy of stay order, it provided it on 30.12.2023 along with the reply. However, the petitioner asserted in the Form-’C3’ that order of blacklisting/debarment is stayed, which is missing in the copy of order, which was furnished to the respondent. 5.5 Learned advocate for the petitioner referred to the order of the competent Court, page 136. However, we are at a loss to see any orders staying blacklisting/debarment of the petitioner by “WBMDTCL”. Still, however, reading para 8 thereof it is submitted that since they are precluded from participating in any tender invited by Government of West Bengal or any of the Government organization, Public Sector Undertakings or Quasi-governmental concerns of the State of West Bengal, it is a stay of blacklisting/debarment so far as it relates to participation in other states and they can participate in any other State. It may be an interpretation of an order passed by the competent Court, by the learned advocate for the petitioner, but in no terms, it reflects that order blacklisting/debarring Consortium partner of the petitioner, is ever stayed by that Court. On the contrary, para 5 thereof reflects that even if period of blacklisting is over, the stigma will not vanish if any condition prescribed in the notice inviting tender is disclosure of any order of blacklisting. Therefore, it is clear that order blacklisting Consortium partner of the petitioner was never stayed by the competent Court, that too, not by the stay order, which is stated to be relied on and annexed along with this petition. 5.6 Coming to the important submissions raised by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the impugned order is an unreasoned order and any amount of reason supplied by way of an affidavit-in-reply cannot supplant the reasons to an impugned order. If we go through the impugned order itself, it appears that though no specific reason or multiple reasons assigned disqualifying the petitioner, it certainly states that the proposal by the petitioner doesn’t meet the guidelines specified in the “RFP document”. Therefore, respondent held petitioner ineligible for further rounds. Since the conditions mentioned in “RFP document” and “NIT” stipulates filing of a declaration in Form-’K’ regarding unconditional acceptance of all the terms and conditions of tender document, which is filed by the petitioner, including annexure, corrigendum, etc. petitioner can be said to have knowledge of the reason why it does not meet with the guidelines specified. 5.7 As such, holding any bidder disqualified under the terms and conditions of “RFP document”, that decision rendering bidder disqualified need not be a well reasoned order as any judicial or quasi-judicial order. In view of the decision in the case of Silppi Constructions (Supra) relied on by the learned advocate for the respondent, more particularly para 25 thereof, which states that decision to disqualify any bidder is purely administrative decisions. Such decisions are in the realm of contract. It is held in the said para 25 that while rejecting the tender, the person or authority inviting the tenders is not required to give reasons even if it be a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, as these decisions are neither judicial nor quasi-judicial. Such decisions are in the realm of contract. It is held in the said para 25 that while rejecting the tender, the person or authority inviting the tenders is not required to give reasons even if it be a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, as these decisions are neither judicial nor quasi-judicial. If reasons are to be given at every stage, then the commercial activities of the State would come to a grinding halt. Therefore, Supreme Court has given sufficient leeway in this regard to the State and/or its instrumentalities. Not only that, the Supreme Court permitted the respondent authority therein to give reasons in the counter to the writ petition, which they have done. 5.8 In view of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Silppi Constructions (Supra), there is no substance in the submission that the order disqualifying the petitioner without assigning reasons calls for interference by this Court. Not only petitioner is knowing the reason for disqualification, as the Consortium partner of the petitioner was blacklisted/debarred by West Bengal Public Sector Undertaking, more particularly “WBMDTCL”, and they claimed that there is a stay order granted against the order of blacklisting. As such, though it was claimed by the petitioner while submitting its bid, no copy of such stay order was produced along with it. Therefore, respondent had to request for providing the same. It was only pursuant to the request made by the respondent that the order annexed with petition at page 136 of Calcutta High Court came to be supplied to it. As held hereinabove, we are at a loss to read any stay order granted by that Court vide that order staying order of blacklisting/debarring in respect of Consortium partner of the petitioner. Any interpretation put forth by the learned advocate for the petitioner that Consortium partner is precluded from participating in any tender invited by the Government of West Bengal or any of the Government organization, Public Sector Undertakings or Quasi-governmental concerns of the State of West Bengal, the said order permits participation of the petitioner in tender process of other states. However, that reading of the order is incorrect. However, that reading of the order is incorrect. 5.9 As per the requirement of the present “RFP document”, more particularly clause 8.7, which says that even if a bidder meets with the eligibility or qualification criteria, it shall be subject to disqualification if it or any of the Consortium partner is found to have made misleading or false representation in the forms, statements or affidavits and attachments submitted in proof of the qualification requirement. If Form-‘C3’ as also Form-’J’ submitted by the petitioner are seen, there is clear false and/or misleading statement that the order of blacklisting/debarment is stayed by the competent Court. Not only that, it is attempted to be justified by saying that precluding Consortium partner of the petitioner from participating in the State of West Bengal or its Public Sector Undertakings is equivalent to permitting it to participate in a tender process of other states. However, the said submission cannot be countenanced, more particularly when, there is specific terms preventing such participant in the present tender process. 5.10 Form-’J’ as provided in clause 8.11, the bidder was supposed to give a declaration as per that format, declaring that bidder or any member of the Consortium and/its Directors have not been blacklisted by 'the Central Government’ or 'the State Government’ or ‘its undertakings’ for preceding 3 years from the date of uploading of “NIT”. The petitioner has firmly given a declaration as per format provided in Form-’J’ claiming that bidder or member of Consortium and or its Directors have not been blacklisted but fact is otherwise. Therefore, declaration in Form-’J’ itself is false, which leads to disqualification, as provided under clause 8.7 of the “RFP document”. 5.11 Another plank of submission that despite clear query raised at pre-bid meeting by the deponent of the petitioner, ‘If any bidder is blacklisted/banned/debarred by some other company, will GMDC allow the bidder for participation as also Form-’J’ is a declaration for not being blacklisted, what if someone is banned/debarred’. To the said query raised by the deponent of the petitioner, a clear answer was given that, ‘No, GMDC will not allow the bidder, who is blacklisted/banned/debarred by any State/Central PSUs and deponent was requested to refer to the corrigendum, which is corrigendum – 02’. Summary of e-queries raised and response from “GMDC” mentioned therein intimated to the prospective bidders, who participated in a pre-bid meeting. Summary of e-queries raised and response from “GMDC” mentioned therein intimated to the prospective bidders, who participated in a pre-bid meeting. From reading all the clauses, even the clauses, as enumerated in para 11 of the petition, intention of the author of the document i.e. respondent, is very clear that anyone, who is blacklisted in preceding 3 years from the date of uploading of “NIT” i.e. 3 years before 02.08.2023, will not be permitted to participate. The said intention was very clear from the existing unamended clause, where respondent referred about 'the Central Government’ or 'the State Government’ or ‘its undertakings’. With corrigendum, though other instances over and above blacklisting, ban/debar/put on holidays are amended. In clause 8.11, there is no corresponding amendment to the Form-’J’, as submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner, has nothing to with the intention of the author of the document. It is good that wider declaration Form-’J’ is given by the petitioner but petitioner is not permitted to submit clarified Form-’J’ with annexure, which was never a part of a format annexure Form-’J’. 5.12 Not only that, despite petitioner knew before participation in the bid that with the existing clause 8.11, which refers 'the Central Government’ or 'the State Government’ or 'its undertakings’ is meant by the author of the document to be any Central/State Government undertakings, when specific query was raised about any order of blacklisting by any other State Public Sector Undertaking is passed, clearly reflects the intention of the author, and therefore, un- amended clause 8.11 existed before pre-bid meeting is continued, carrying 'the Central Government’ or 'the State Government’ or 'its undertakings’ as it is. Therefore, deliberately the petitioner has not referred to in the petition about the very said query raised by it in a pre-bid meeting and the response of the respondent herein. If it cannot be termed as a material suppression, it is an attempt to mislead the Court. 5.13 It would be profitable to refer and rely upon a decision in the case of Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. & Anr., reported in 2016(16) SCC 818 for a proposition that the owner or the employer of a project, having authored the tender documents, is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements and interpret its documents. The constitutional Courts must defer to this understanding and appreciation of the tender documents, unless there is mala fide or perversity. 5.14 In the present case, petitioner has never alleged any mala fide or any perversity in the decisionmaking process. Not only the intention of the author of the tender document was very clear from before even any participation to the tender is made by any of the bidder and it was known to all, more particularly to the present deponent of the petition and the interpretation put forth by it has to be accepted in absence of any perversity alleged for the said interpretation and in our view, said interpretation put by the author appears to be what it intended. To examine the said aspect from another angle, no employer of a project would enter into a contract with a person, who is blacklisted/debarred/put on holiday list, even by other State subject to terms of the tender, which is clear from the clause 8.11 that the said blacklisting of a bidder has to be limiting to be preceding 3 years from the date of “NIT” i.e. 02.08.2023. In the present case, there is no dispute that the Consortium partner of the petitioner held to be blacklisted/debarred within preceding 3 years from the date 02.08.2023. Not only that, blacklisting order passed by “WBMDTCL”, prior thereto even Western Coalfields Limited blacklisted the very Consortium partner of the petitioner, which was suppressed by it in a tender floated by “WBMDTCL”, and therefore, it was disqualified, which was challenged before the competent Court at West Bengal, where the so called stay order, as claimed by the learned advocate for the petitioner, has come to be passed. Therefore, no prudent man, more particularly the State or its instrumentalities would like to contract with such a person and provide for such condition in the tender document. Not only that, petitioner has filed a false declaration stating therein that neither the joint-venture nor its Consortium partner is blacklisted in preceding 3 years from the date of “NIT”, whereas there is no dispute by the petitioner that vide order dated 31.05.2023, “WBMDTCL” blacklisted it for a period of 5 years from the issuance of that order in a further/future tenders of “WBMDTCL”. 5.15 Again examining the said argument from different angle, if the interpretation put forth by the learned advocate for the petitioner is to be accepted, order of blacklisting/debarring has to be by the State Government i.e. State of Gujarat itself. If that interpretation is to be accepted, any party, who is blacklisted by the State of Gujarat, would not be entitled to participate in the tender of the State of Gujarat but any bidder, who is blacklisted/debarred by any other State, would be entitled to participate in a tender issued by the State of Gujarat. It may lead to an anomalous situation, whereas requirement as per terms of tender, filing of a declaration and expectation of true and correct facts about blacklisting/debarment from a prospective bidder, which is found missing in the present case. On the contrary, a false declaration appears to have been filed, and therefore, petitioner is rightly disqualified vide communication dated 08.01.2024. 5.16 The contention of the learned advocate for the petitioner to the effect that order of disqualification as to a reasoned order, relying on a decision in the case of Adani Ports (Supra), cannot be accepted for the reason that the very same Bench, which pronounced the said decision, had an occasion to clarify the same in a decision in the case of Cube Construction Engineering (Supra). In para 39 thereof, as in the case of Adani Ports (Supra), disqualification was not a disqualification simpliciter but it would be disqualifying the bidder from participating in any future bids for a period of two years, which swayed in the mind of the Court to arrive at a conclusion that in the circumstances which would result in flowing of civil consequences, such rejection should be made by a reasoned order. There, the coordinate Bench of this Court accepted reasoned order for passing any order precluding any bidder from future participation for even any specified period, which entails civil consequences, and therefore, said order should be supported with reasons as even a prior notice before precluding anyone from participation in a future bid is required. There, the coordinate Bench of this Court accepted reasoned order for passing any order precluding any bidder from future participation for even any specified period, which entails civil consequences, and therefore, said order should be supported with reasons as even a prior notice before precluding anyone from participation in a future bid is required. 5.17 At the same time, decision in the case of Silppi Constructions(Supra) of the Supreme Court is very clear on the issue when it states that while rejecting the tender, the authority inviting the tender is not required to give reasons even if it be a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. 5.18 Learned advocate for the respondent relied on a decision in the case of Montecarlo Limited (Supra), reported for a proposition that the Court as far as possible, avoid a construction which would render the words used by the author of the tender document meaningless and futile. After analysis of several Supreme Court decisions and several precedents, including that of Supreme Court, very succinctly concluded in para 49 as under:- “49. Thus, from the aforesaid discussion of the case-law what is discernible is that the court must, as far as possible, avoid a construction which would render the words used by the author of the tender document meaningless and futile. The court would not ascribe superfluity to the language of a document. The court would necessarily examine the decision making process to ascertain whether the process adopted or decision made by the authority is malafide or arbitrary and irrational or is such that no such authority acting reasonably and in accordance with the relevant law could have reached, and whether the decision is against the public interest. As observed in Central Coalfields Limited (supra) that if an administrative decision, even a deviation in the terms of the notice inviting tender, if it is not arbitrary, irrational, unreasonable, malafide or biased, the courts would be loath to undertake judicial review of such decision. Also the courts would not countenance interference with the decision at the behest of an unsuccessful bidder in respect of a technical or procedural violation. The employer of a project, having authored the tender documents, is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements and interpret its documents. The constitutional courts must defer to this understanding and appreciation of the tender documents. The employer of a project, having authored the tender documents, is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements and interpret its documents. The constitutional courts must defer to this understanding and appreciation of the tender documents. unless there is malafide or perversity in the understanding of appreciation or in the application of the terms of the tender conditions.” 5.19 Reliance placed on the decision in the case of M/s. Baroda Surgical (Supra) by the learned advocate for the petitioner is of no help. In the said case, the coordinate Bench of this Court had an occasion to deal with different set of clauses of a tender document and analysis thereof led that Court to interpret requirement of disclosing pendency of criminal proceedings filed by the State, holding that the harmonious construction of very clause and the form annexed reveals that the requirement is with regard to disclosing pendency of criminal proceedings filed by State of Gujarat alone and not of the other States. Therefore, non-declaration of the bidder therein of a criminal prosecution filed in another State held to be due compliance of the tender condition, and therefore, the said decision cannot be pressed into service for the interpretation of the clauses and the interpretation, which was clear from the beginning, and made it expressively before participation in the bid to the deponent of the petition, we are unable to interpret the word 'the Central Government’ or 'the State Government’ or 'its undertakings’ limiting it to the order of blacklisting/debarment to be passed by the State of Gujarat alone and not any other State. 5.20 Reliance placed on the decision in the case of Caretel Infotech (Supra) is also not of any help to the petitioner for the reason that it is not disqualified on the ground that wide declaration in format Form-’J’, which is prescribed, is given. If any terms and conditions of tender document mentions about eventualities more than one, and one out of it is not mentioned in the format to be provided for on the ground that no such eventuality is met with in the format form prescribed under the said condition is not followed, then only the petitioner may be right and reliance placed on the decision in the case of Caretel Infotech (Supra) would be of any help to it. However, the petitioner is disqualified in terms of para 8.7.1, as format Form-’J’, wherein declaration to the effect that the bidder or any member of Consortium and/or its Directors have not been blacklisted/debarred/banned by 'the Central Government’ or 'the State Government’ or 'its undertakings’ in preceding 3 years from the date of uploading “NIT”, since petitioner was disqualified by “WBMDTCL” within preceding 3 years, the said undertaking in format Form-’J’ is found to be incorrect when it claims that there is no order of blacklisting/debarring passed against it. The contention that order of blacklisting should be passed by the State of Gujarat alone, as per the requirement, cannot be countenanced as concluded hereinabove for the reason that if that interpretation is to be given, any bidder, who is disqualified by the State of Gujarat itself, cannot be permitted to participate in the bid but the other bidders, who may be blacklisted by other state even more than one, to be permitted to participate in this tender could never be the intention of any buyer. The intention of the buyer for imposing such condition appears to be that no such person should be permitted to participate in the tender process. The very same phraseology was used in the terms of “NIT” prior to pre-bid meeting, in the pre-bid meeting, the intention was made explicit by answering the very deponent of the petition that bidder, who is blacklisted/banned/debarred by any State/Central PSUs will not be allowed to participate. Even after the corrigendum issued pursuant to pre-bid meeting, there is no change in the said phraseology, 'the Central Government’ or 'the State Government’ or 'its undertakings’ is used with that very intention and it was construed by the respondent in that sense alone. 5.21 As rightly submitted by the learned advocate for the respondent, placing reliance on the decision in the case of Afcons Infrastructure (Supra) that the owner or the employer of a project, having authored the tender documents, is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements and interpret its documents. The constitutional Courts must defer to this understanding and appreciation of the tender documents, unless there is mala fide or perversity. The constitutional Courts must defer to this understanding and appreciation of the tender documents, unless there is mala fide or perversity. As stated hereinabove, prior to the pre-bid meeting, at the time of pre-bid meeting and even thereafter also there was one and sole intention of the author of the tender document of not permitting any bidder, who is blacklisted/debarred/banned/put on holiday list by any Central or State PSUs. Therefore, order blacklisting/debarring Consortium partner of the petitioner by “WBMDTCL” within 3 years from the date of “NIT” and despite that, stating in format Form-’J’ that neither petitioner nor its Consortium partner is blacklisted/debarred by 'the Central Government’ or 'the State Government’ or 'its undertakings’ found to be false and in consonance with tender terms 8.7.1 that, any misleading or false representation in the forms, statements, affidavits and attachments submitted in proof of the qualification requirement, it would incur disqualification despite bidder meets the eligibility and/or qualification criteria. 6. As such, filing of a petition even after receipt of security deposit on 27.01.2024, exactly after one month of it, challenging an order dated 08.01.2024, we would have imposed cost on the petitioner but we refrain from doing so. However, the petition being merit-less, we hereby dismiss the same. Hence, this petition is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost.