JUDGMENT : (Ritu Bahri, CJ.) : The petitioner, by way of the present Writ Petition, is challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the tender document for annual university rate contractor, supply of animal and poultry feed ingredients and feed additives, bearing No. GBPU/SPO/URC/IDF/412 issued on 29.12.2023 by the respondent-University. The petitioner is challenging Clause No. 5 of the said tender document, whereby minimum required turnover/ average turnover of the firm during the past 03 years, for all items, except Item No. 12, has been stated to be Rs. 30 crores for 03 years, or 10 crores every year, for the last 03 years. Petitioner submits that the said condition is totally arbitrary, malafide and has been tailor made to suit one of the prospective bidders. 2. Petitioner has placed on record the order dated 24.11.2023, passed in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 342 of 2023, “Jeet Ram and Sons v. Govind Ballabh Pant University of Agriculture & Technology & others” as Annexure No. 1. 3. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner had challenged the tender process, whereby one of the private respondents, who did not meet the requirement of Condition No. 3 of the Notice Inviting Tender, has been declared to be eligible. The University decided to cancel the tender process, and issued a fresh Notice Inviting Tender. The grievance of the petitioner is that, since the petitioner had approached this Court, and order dated 24.11.2023 had been passed in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 342 of 2023, the respondent, thereafter, issued a notice on 29.12.2023 (Annexure No. 2), with the following conditions : Item(s) Minimum Required Turnover of the firm (during past 3 years)/ Average Annual Turnover (in) For All the Items except Item No. 12 30 Crores/10 Crores For Item No. 12 105 Crores/35 Crores (For the bidders from Uttarakhand state it is 90 Crores/ 30 Crores) 4. The above-said conditions were never mentioned in the last three financial years ending 31.03.2023, and hence this Writ Petition has been filed, challenging the above-said conditions of the tender notice. 5. Petitioner has placed on record Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated 30.08.2023 (Annexure No. 4), and Tender Notice dated 24.08.2020 and 29.04.2022 (Annexure No. 5) to show that in those notices the condition imposed was that the bidder should have a turnover of Rs. 3 crores. Petitioner made representations against the said conditions on 01.01.2022 (Annexure No. 6). 6. 5. Petitioner has placed on record Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated 30.08.2023 (Annexure No. 4), and Tender Notice dated 24.08.2020 and 29.04.2022 (Annexure No. 5) to show that in those notices the condition imposed was that the bidder should have a turnover of Rs. 3 crores. Petitioner made representations against the said conditions on 01.01.2022 (Annexure No. 6). 6. After notice of this Writ Petition, reply, by way of counter affidavit dated 05.02.2024, has been filed by Govind Ballabh Pant University of Agriculture & Technology, Pantnagar. In paragraph no. 8 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that the turnover conditions are based on the expected financial stability of the bidder as a general condition. They have placed on record Annexure Nos. R-2, R-3 and R-4, where following examples have been given : “(i) Tender: of Hon'ble High Court of Uttarakhand (Tender ID: eCourt-III/UHC/Hand Held Devices/2023) Approx. Value of Procurement: Rs. 20 Lakhs Turnover Criteria set in Tender: Rs. 50 Lakhs Percentage to Procurement Value : 250% (Copy of the same is annexed as Annexure-R-2). (ii) Tender: Uttarakhand Work Force Development Project (UKWDP) Govt. of Uttarakhand (Bid Reference No: UKWDP/TnE3/GRINDER_N_ACCESSORIES/62R dated 01.12.2023) Approx. Value of Procurement: Rs. 150 Lakhs Turnover Criteria set in Tender: Rs. 290 Lakhs Percentage to Procurement Value: 193% (Copy of the same is annexed as Annexure-R-3). (iii) Tender: Comptroller And Auditor General (CAG) of India (Bid Number: GEM/2022/B/2826703 Dated: 07-12-2022) Approx. Value of Procurement: Rs. 20 Lakhs Turnover Criteria set in Tender: Rs. 115 Lakhs Percentage to Procurement Value : 575% (Copy of the same is annexed as Annexure-R-4)” 7. With regard to the present tender dated 29.12.2023, it is stated that the expected annualized value of procurement, under the rate contract, was Rs. 5 crores, and the annual turnover criteria has been fixed as Rs. 10 crores (two times of annualized value of expected procurement). It is further stated that, as per the Policy, i.e. G.O. of Department of Animal Husbandry, Government of Uttarakhand, a similar criteria of turnover has been imposed for rate contract of Mineral Mixture. It is further clarified in paragraph no. 9 that the present tender is not a Works Tender, and it is a Rate Contract for Goods, for which there are no guidelines defined in the Uttarakhand Procurement Rules, 2017 or 2018. It is further clarified in paragraph no. 9 that the present tender is not a Works Tender, and it is a Rate Contract for Goods, for which there are no guidelines defined in the Uttarakhand Procurement Rules, 2017 or 2018. The Manual for Procurement of Goods, 2017 (Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, Government of India) has been considered as the basis for formulation of Tender Document, and the relevant guidelines thereof are reproduced as under : “8.1.9 Special Conditions applicable for Rate Contract- Some conditions of rate contract differ from the usual conditions applicable for ad-hoc contracts. Some such important special conditions of rate contract are given below: i) Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) is to be furnished by unregistered bidders only. The amount of EMD should be fixed by the purchase organizations concerned. (Page no. 115 chapter 8), Copy of the same is annexed as Annexure-R-6. EMD should be sufficient to ensure that bidders honour their bids but at the same time should not be large enough to reduce competition (Page no. 41 chapter 4), Copy of the same is annexed as Annexure-R-7.” 8. In paragraph no. 10 of the reply, it is further stated that the Annual Rate Contract Tender, is defined in the Manual for Procurement of Goods 2017 (Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, Government of India), as follows : “8.1 Rate Contracts 8.1.1 Definition: A Rate Contract (commonly known as RC) is an agreement between the purchaser and the supplier for supply of specified goods (and allied services, if any) at specified price and terms & conditions (as incorporated in the agreement) during the period covered by the Rate Contract. No quantity is mentioned nor is any minimum drawal guaranteed in the Rate Contract. The Rate Contract is in the nature of a standing offer from the supplier firm. The firm and/or the purchaser are entitled to withdraw/cancel the Rate Contract by serving an appropriate notice on each other giving 15 (fifteen) days time. However, once a supply order is placed on the supplier for supply of a definite quantity in terms of the rate contract during the validity period of the rate contract, that supply order becomes a valid and binding contract. In view of Government eMarketplace coming into operation, Rate Contract will be applicable for specialized and engineering items. However, once a supply order is placed on the supplier for supply of a definite quantity in terms of the rate contract during the validity period of the rate contract, that supply order becomes a valid and binding contract. In view of Government eMarketplace coming into operation, Rate Contract will be applicable for specialized and engineering items. Rate Contract is not required to be executed for common use items like computers, printers, photocopiers, paper and stationary, other office items like furniture, bottled water etc., which are being placed on GeM.” 9. In paragraph no. 11, it is further clarified that the earlier Tender, bearing No. GBPU/SPO/IDF/236, issued on 30.08.2023, was for an ad-hoc purchase for specified quantity, and the validity of rate was for 180 days. Copy of the said tender is Annexure R-9. 10. In the present tender, the validity of rate is specified by Condition No. 29 of Instructions to Bidders, as follows : “29. The validity of rates shall be minimum one year in case of University Rate Contract from the date of opening of technical bid/offer and thereafter on mutual consent for further extension of rate contract.” 11. It is further stated in the reply that all the conditions of the present tender for Rate Contract, are framed on the basis of the expected annualized purchase of Rs. 5 crores, and the same are based on the Manual for Procurement of Goods, 2017 (Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, Government of India). 12. Finally, it is stated that the petitioner, along with his allies, was involved in cartel forming, and this fact is evident from the order dated 24.11.2023, whereby his Writ Petition, being Writ Petition (M/B) No. 342 of 2023, was withdrawn. Annexure R-11 is a comparison chart, showing all his allies, where the difference is mere 10 to 30 per quintal in the rates quoted by the petitioner and his allies, whereas the difference of rates for similar items, when compared with the other firm, is 400 to 600 per quintal. In this backdrop, during 2023, the University could not form any Rate Contract, because similar pooled rates were quoted by the firms, including the petitioner’s firm. 13. The respondents have placed on record Annexure R-13, which is the Manual for Procurement of Goods 2017, Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, Government of India, where Rule 7.5.8 contains punishment for Cartel Formation/ Pool Rates. 13. The respondents have placed on record Annexure R-13, which is the Manual for Procurement of Goods 2017, Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, Government of India, where Rule 7.5.8 contains punishment for Cartel Formation/ Pool Rates. They have further placed on record Annexure R-14 - condition prescribed by Department of Animal Husbandry, Government of Uttarakhand on turnover imposed for Rate Contract of Mineral Mixture/ Feed Additives in the tender document, as “Specific Terms & Conditions of the Tender”. 14. Vide Annexure R-15 dated 15.01.2024, reply to the petitioner’s representation has already been given. The reply-Annexure R-15 is based on the Manual for Procurement of Goods, 2017 (Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, Government of India). 15. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length. 16. A reference can be made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Afcons Infrastructure Limited v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Limited and another, (2016) 16 SCC 818 . In this case, the Supreme Court was examining the case of Formation of Government Contract, Tender Conditions/ Criteria/ Norms/ Request for Proposal (RFP), and the scope of judicial review. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the words used in the tender documents cannot be ignored or treated as redundant or superfluous – they must be given their meaning and necessary significance. Unless there is mala fide or irrationality or perversity in the understanding or appreciation, or in the application of the terms of the tender conditions, the High Court should not interfere with the decision of the authority at the time of disqualification of a bidder. The Supreme Court was examining the tender inviting bids for design and construction of viaduct on a specific route of Nagpur Metro Rail Project. In paragraph nos. 13 to 15, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under : “13. In other words, a mere disagreement with the decision making process or the decision of the administrative authority is no reason for a constitutional Court to interfere. The threshold of mala fides, intention to favour someone or arbitrariness, irrationality or perversity must be met before the constitutional Court interferes with the decision making process or the decision. 14. In other words, a mere disagreement with the decision making process or the decision of the administrative authority is no reason for a constitutional Court to interfere. The threshold of mala fides, intention to favour someone or arbitrariness, irrationality or perversity must be met before the constitutional Court interferes with the decision making process or the decision. 14. We must reiterate the words of caution that this Court has stated right from the time when Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India was decided almost 40 years ago, namely, that the words used in the tender documents cannot be ignored or treated as redundant or superfluous – they must be given meaning and their necessary significance. In this context, the use of the word ‘metro’ in Clause 4.2 (a) of Section III of the bid documents and its connotation in ordinary parlance cannot be overlooked. 15. We may add 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 in the understanding or appreciation or in the application of the terms of the tender conditions. It is possible that the owner or employer of a project may give an interpretation to the tender documents that is not acceptable to the constitutional Courts but that by itself is not a reason for interfering with the interpretation given.” 17. Thereafter, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Manohar Lal Sharma v. Narendra Damodardas Modi and others, (2019) 3 SCC 25 , was examining the purchase of 36 Rafale fighter jets. In the records produced before the Supreme Court, the Government did not disclose pricing details, other than basic price of aircraft because of national security and because of protection of classified information as per Article 10, Inter-Governmental Agreement (IGA). The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that defence procurements are different from other procurements because of their unique and complex decision-making process. Judicial review in such matters is available on the grounds of mala fides, favouritism, illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, while dismissing the SLP, observed that in certain matters the Courts have to keep national security and national sovereignty in mind. In paragraph no. Judicial review in such matters is available on the grounds of mala fides, favouritism, illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, while dismissing the SLP, observed that in certain matters the Courts have to keep national security and national sovereignty in mind. In paragraph no. 7, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under : “7. Parameters of judicial review of administrative decisions with regard to award of tenders and contracts has really developed from the increased participation of the State in commercial and economic activity. In Jagdish Mandal vs. State of Orissa and Ors. this Court, conscious of the limitations in commercial transactions, confined its scrutiny to the decision making process and on the parameters of unreasonableness and mala fides. In fact, the Court held that it was not to exercise the power of judicial review even if a procedural error is committed to the prejudice of the tenderer since private interests cannot be protected while exercising such judicial review. The award of contract, being essentially a commercial transaction, has to be determined on the basis of considerations that are relevant to such commercial decisions, and this implies that terms subject to which tenders are invited are not open to judicial scrutiny unless it is found that the same have been tailor-made to benefit any particular tenderer or a class of tenderers. (See Maa Binda Express Carrier & Anr. Vs. North-East Frontier Railway & Ors.)” 18. As per the reply counter-affidavit filed by respondent nos. 1 and 2, they have placed on record copies of four tenders issued by separate departments, Annexure-R4, where, with respect to the value of procurement, the turn-over criteria has been mentioned, and in one of the tenders, the value of procurement was Rs. 20 Lakhs, and the turn-over criteria was Rs. 115 Lakhs, which was 575% more than the procurement value. 19. It is further stated that in the present case, the procurement value was Rs. 5 Crores and the annual turn-over criteria, which was fixed, was Rs. 10 Crores. 20. Another ground taken is that this criteria has been fixed following the Annual Rate Contract, which is as per the Manual for Procurement of Goods, 2017, which lays down the procedure for Rate Contract. 5 Crores and the annual turn-over criteria, which was fixed, was Rs. 10 Crores. 20. Another ground taken is that this criteria has been fixed following the Annual Rate Contract, which is as per the Manual for Procurement of Goods, 2017, which lays down the procedure for Rate Contract. In paragraph 10 of this reply, it is stated that the Rate Contract was in the nature of standing-offer from the supplier firm, and the firm, or purchaser was entitled to withdraw/ cancel the Rate Contract by serving an appropriate notice. 21. Since, in the present case, the value of contract has been given as Rs. 5 Crores, and the turn-over criteria has been fixed as Rs. 10 Crores, no ground is made out to interfere with the impugned notice/ tender. 22. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 23. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.