JUDGMENT : Sanjay Kumar Medhi, J. 9(Nine) petitioners have joined together in constituting a challenge to a common email dated 20.07.2023 by which the petitioners have been informed that their bids were cancelled. Such bids were submitted pursuant to an NIT dated 07.07.2023 floated by the FCI for supply of 100 MT of wheat. 2. As per the facts projected, the petitioners which are 9(nine) in numbers have their offices at Guwahati. The petitioners had participated in the said NIT by depositing an Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) of Rs.1.10 lakhs each. Subsequent to such participation, the petitioners who claim to be eligible in all respects, were anticipating allotment of work order. It is the case of the petitioners that the terms and conditions for empanelment of technically qualified bulk consumer have been given in the NIT. It is submitted that so far as GST registration under clause A(i)(v) is concerned, the same is not a mandatory requirement. It is also the case of the petitioners that certain communications have been exchanged by email from which it can be deduced that submission of the GST details or registration is not mandatory. The petitioners have also cited similar allotment orders without GST for the State of Jharkhand. However, vide the impugned email dated 20.07.2023, the petitioners have been informed that their bid was cancelled as they did not have GST registration. It is also informed that the bidders having GST registration outside the State of Assam cannot participate in the e-auction of wheat under OMSS(D). 3. I have heard Shri D. Rathi, learned counsel for the petitioners. I have also heard Shri B.K. Singh, learned Standing Counsel, FCI. 4. Shri Rathi, learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the Clauses of the NIT. By drawing the attention of this Court to the terms and conditions for empanelment of technically qualified bulk purchaser more particularly, Clause A(i)(v), the learned counsel has submitted that attested copy of the GST was to be submitted only if the buyer was registered under such category. It is also submitted that the clause provides for submission of self attested copies of the latest Annual Balance Sheet and Profit and Loss Account duly audited by a Chartered Accountant. It is also submitted that the clause provides for submission of self attested copies of the latest Annual Balance Sheet and Profit and Loss Account duly audited by a Chartered Accountant. It also provides that for a newly established firm or the existing firms which have recently started to deal in the business of wheat, a provisional Balance Sheet and Profit and Loss Account accompanied by a limited review by the Auditor / Chartered Accountant should be furnished. It is only when such certificate cannot be furnished, the requirement of GST returns would arise. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also drawn the attention of this Court to certain emails to demonstrate that it was within the understanding of the parties that GST certificate / registration is not mandatory. By referring to the emails dated 17.06.2023 issued by the petitioners and the reply dated 18.06.2023 by the FCI, it is submitted that so far as the documents for new registration under the FCI-M Junction is concerned, 3 nos. of documents would be necessary, namely, (i) undertaking on Rs.100 Stamp, (ii) CA Certified BS and PL and (iii) CA Certificate for as proof of wheat business. Attention of this Court has also been drawn to another email dated 21.06.2023 as per which one of the petitioners was asked to furnish CA Certified BS and PL for the year 2021-22 which is a mandatory document. He has also referred to an email dated 17.06.2023 as per which one of the petitioners was directed to furnish undertaking in stamp paper of Rs.100 and BS and PL self attested along with a CA letter for Wheat Business Proof. He has also submitted that so far as a similar procurement process pertaining to the State of Jharkhand, the insistence on GST was not made. The learned counsel for the petitioners accordingly submits that the present impugned action is discriminatory as the FCI cannot have two different stands for two different States. 6. He has also referred to the aspect of maintaining fairness and transparency in the matters of distribution of State largesse. In this regard, he has relied upon the case of Ramana Dayaram Shetty Vs. International Airport Authority of India and Ors. reported in (1979) 3 SCC 489 and also the case of Air India Ltd. Vs. 6. He has also referred to the aspect of maintaining fairness and transparency in the matters of distribution of State largesse. In this regard, he has relied upon the case of Ramana Dayaram Shetty Vs. International Airport Authority of India and Ors. reported in (1979) 3 SCC 489 and also the case of Air India Ltd. Vs. Cochin International Airport reported in (2000) 2 SCC 617 to buttress his submission that judicial review can be made on the decision making process. Reliance has also been placed upon the case of Proactive In & Out Advertising Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pune Mahanagar Mahamandal Limited reported in (2018) 6 MAH LJ 561 wherein it has been held by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court that review is permissible in contractual matters. He has also raised the issue of there being a concluded contract and questioned the authority of the Additional General Manager to issue the impugned order. 7. Per contra, Shri B.K. Singh, the learned Standing Counsel, FCI has submitted that GST registration is a mandatory requirement. He clarifies that till the year 2022, there was no such requirement, however, thereafter, the GST registration has been made mandatory after promulgation of the laws. He has submitted that there is a clear distinction between the aspect of empanelment and the aspect of bidding for the procurement process. It is submitted that M/s M. Junction Services Ltd. is an e-platform created only for the purpose of empanelment. He has clarified that the emails referred to by the petitioners are only with the requirement of empanelment and have nothing to do with the actual procurement process. It is submitted that GST registration may not be necessary for the purpose of empanelment which, however, is mandatory for participation in the e-tenders pertaining to the particular State. It is submitted that Clause 6 of the NIT is not the subject matter of challenge. He has also informed that all the 9(nine) petitioners are empanelled in the State of West Bengal under the M. Junction and they are also registered under the GST in their respective States. 8. The learned Standing Counsel has also referred to a notification dated 17.07.2022 regarding the necessity of GST which covers the item in question i.e. “Wheat”. He has also informed that all the 9(nine) petitioners are empanelled in the State of West Bengal under the M. Junction and they are also registered under the GST in their respective States. 8. The learned Standing Counsel has also referred to a notification dated 17.07.2022 regarding the necessity of GST which covers the item in question i.e. “Wheat”. As regards the reference to the case of State of Jharkhand, it is submitted that in the RTI reply, it has been clarified that due to inadvertence, the GST was not insisted upon. He has, however, informed that the same cannot be a binding precedent as the same was done due to error and the case of Jharkhand would be dealt accordingly. On the submission regarding acceptance of offer, the learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the same was generated by the M. Junction and unless the Release Order is issued, it cannot be held to be a concluded contract. Regarding the objection taken that it is only the General Manager who has the power to cancel, the learned Standing Counsel has submitted that under Clause 5, the General Manager would also mean Area Manager, Deputy Manger etc. and in the instant case, the order has been issued by the Additional General Manager which is the new designation for Area Manager. It is submitted that under Clause 2(ii), after acceptance, further verification is done and then only the Release Order is issued and unless such Release Order is issued, the question of a binding contract would not arise at all. He accordingly submits that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. Shri Rathi, learned counsel for the petitioners, in his rejoinder, has submitted that the FCI cannot distance itself from the platform, namely, M. Junction. He has also submitted that acceptance of the offer being made, there was a concluded contract which could not have been cancelled without notice. On the aspect of concluded contract, the learned counsel has relied upon a decision of Har Shankar and Ors. Vs. Dy. Excise and Taxation Commissioner and Ors. reported in (1975) 1 SCC 737 . It is submitted that cancellation of the contract has been done without affording any reason and without there being any provision in the contract and therefore, there is gross violation of the principles of natural justice. Vs. Dy. Excise and Taxation Commissioner and Ors. reported in (1975) 1 SCC 737 . It is submitted that cancellation of the contract has been done without affording any reason and without there being any provision in the contract and therefore, there is gross violation of the principles of natural justice. He has also submitted that the petitioners genuinely apprehend that their EMD would be forfeited, which is not authorized by law. 10. The rival submissions have been duly considered and the materials before this Court have been carefully perused. 11. The issue is with regard to the requirement of GST registration for a bidder in respect of the concerned NIT dated 07.07.2023. While, as per the petitioners, such registration is not required and could not be insisted upon, the stand of the Corporation is that such registration is mandatory. It has been clarified that on behalf of the Corporation that till 2022, registration under the GST was not mandatory. However, thereafter, it has been made mandatory. 12. To examine the aforesaid aspect, the requirement of the NIT has been carefully scrutinized. Clause 6 of the said NIT reads as follows : “6. PAN number, one of the mandatory prerequisites for the empanelment of Flour Mills/Traders /empaneled bulk buyers/ Manufacturers of wheat products to be continued as unique identifying factor. Against One PAN number, only One participation will be allowed in one bid in a State/UT, in each weekly auction. Irrespective of the number of firms registered or multiple GST/TRADE TAX REGISTRATION under the same PAN, bidding would be allowed in a State against the GST/TRADE TAX REGISTRATION registered in that State/UT only. The maximum quantity that a buyer can bid is 100 MT against one PAN and GST/TRADE TAX REGISTRATION, of the State/UT concerned. (for eg, if a bidder is having the GST/TRADE TAX REGISTRATION from state of Haryana, he can bid for stocks from Haryana and not for stocks offered from any other State/Region of FCI. However, there is no bar in participating the bid by that bidder from other states if he is having different GST/TRADE TAX REGISTRATION in such other state/states.)” 13. A reading of the same would clearly show that registration under the GST / Trade Tax is mandatory in nature and it has further been clarified that bidding would be allowed in a State against the GST registered in that State only. A reading of the same would clearly show that registration under the GST / Trade Tax is mandatory in nature and it has further been clarified that bidding would be allowed in a State against the GST registered in that State only. It has also been clarified that there would not be any bar in participating in the bid by the bidder of the other States if such bidder has a different GST in the said State. Admittedly, the aforesaid Clause 6 is not the subject matter of challenge. 14. It is an admitted case that none of the petitioners have GST registration in the State of Assam. It has also been revealed in the proceedings that the petitioners have GST registration in the State of West Bengal and in fact, have been allotted works in the said State. When the tender condition requires a registration under the GST in the concerned State, the action of the respondent – Corporation cannot be found fault with. 15. Much emphasis has been given on behalf of the petitioners that they have been empanelled in the M. Junction for which registration under the GST is not mandatory. It appears that such empanelment in the M. Junction is only to facilitate a bidder to participate in a tender process which is online. However, mere empanelment would not be conclusive on the eligibility aspect and such eligibility is necessarily to be examined from the conditions laid down in the tender notice. 16. A frail argument was made on behalf of the petitioner that wheat is an exempted item under the GST registration. However the same stands belied in view of the notification dated 17.07.2022 of the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue wherein it has been clearly laid down that wheat is covered under the GST. In this regard, specific pleading has been made in paragraph 10 of the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent – Corporation dated 05.02.2024. 17. As regards the instance of the State of Jharkhand is cited, the respondent – Corporation has clarified that there has been an error in the said process. In any case, the right under Article 14 of the Constitution of India is a positive right and there is no concept of negative equality. It is also contended on behalf of the petitioners that there was a concluded contract. In any case, the right under Article 14 of the Constitution of India is a positive right and there is no concept of negative equality. It is also contended on behalf of the petitioners that there was a concluded contract. However, the impugned action has been taken prior to any issuance of Release Order and therefore, the said contention cannot be accepted. It is the categorical of the Corporation, as would reveal from the pleadings made in paragraph 8 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed on 05.02.2024 that the system generated acceptance of offer is immediately sent by M. Junction after completion of bidding with the understanding that the participation was after being fully aware of the terms and conditions. The same are to be verified at the Divisional Office Level before issue of the Release Order, failing which, the bids would stand cancelled and EMD forfeited. The competency of the officer issuing the impugned communication also does not appear to suffer from any infirmity in view of the definition of “General Manager” as would appear from the definition in Clause 1(v). 18. Apart from the terms and conditions of the tender being specific with regard to the requirement of the GST registration in the State, it is the settled that that the owner / author of the tender document would be the best person to interpret the same. In the case of Caretel Infotech Limited Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and Ors. reported in (2019) 14 SCC 81 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down that emphasis to be given to the author of the tender document in interpreting any terms of the contract. For ready reference, the relevant extract is quoted hereinbelow- “39. Another aspect emphasised is that the author of the document is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements. In the facts of the present case, the view, on interpreting the tender documents, of respondent No. 1 must prevail. Respondent No. 1 itself, appreciative of the wording of clause 20 and the format, has taken a considered view. Respondent No. 3 cannot compel its own interpretation of the contract to be thrust on respondent No. 1, or ask the Court to compel respondent No. 1 to accept that interpretation. Respondent No. 1 itself, appreciative of the wording of clause 20 and the format, has taken a considered view. Respondent No. 3 cannot compel its own interpretation of the contract to be thrust on respondent No. 1, or ask the Court to compel respondent No. 1 to accept that interpretation. In fact, the Court went on to observe in the aforesaid judgment that it is possible that the author of the tender may give an interpretation that is not acceptable to the Constitutional Court, but that itself would not be a reason for interfering with the interpretation given. We reproduce the observations in this behalf as under: “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.” 19. In the case of Agmatel India Private Limited Vs. Resoursys Telecom and Ors. reported in (2022) 5 SCC 362 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court after discussing the relevant case laws holding the field has summarized in the following manner : “17. The above-mentioned statements of law make it amply clear that the author of the tender document is taken to be the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements; and if its interpretation is manifestly in consonance with the language of the tender document or sub-serving the purchase of the tender, the Court would prefer to keep restraint. Further to that, the technical evaluation or comparison by the Court is impermissible; and even if the interpretation given to the tender document by the person inviting offers is not as such acceptable to the Constitutional Court, that, by itself, would not be a reason for interfering with the interpretation given”. 20. Further to that, the technical evaluation or comparison by the Court is impermissible; and even if the interpretation given to the tender document by the person inviting offers is not as such acceptable to the Constitutional Court, that, by itself, would not be a reason for interfering with the interpretation given”. 20. Law is well settled that in matters of tender, the role of the Court should be restricted and unless the impugned action is palpably unreasonable or vitiated by mala fide, interference is to be avoided as it causes delay which has cascading effect on the public interest. In the aforesaid case of Caretel Infotech Limited (supra), the following has been laid down- “37. We consider it appropriate to make certain observations in the context of the nature of dispute which is before us. Normally parties would be governed by their contracts and the tender terms, and really no writ would be maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In view of Government and Public Sector Enterprises venturing into economic activities, this Court found it appropriate to build in certain checks and balances of fairness in procedure. It is this approach which has given rise to scrutiny of tenders in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It, however, appears that the window has been opened too wide as almost every small or big tender is now sought to be challenged in writ proceedings almost as a matter of routine. This in turn, affects the efficacy of commercial activities of the public sectors, which may be in competition with the private sector. This could hardly have been the objective in mind. An unnecessary, close scrutiny of minute details, contrary to the view of the tendering authority, makes awarding of contracts by Government and Public Sectors a cumbersome exercise, with long drawn out litigation at the threshold. The private sector is competing often in the same field. Promptness and efficiency levels in private contracts, thus, often tend to make the tenders of the public sector a non-competitive exercise. This works to a great disadvantage to the Government and the Public Sector.” 21. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. reported in (2012) 8 SCC 216 has reiterated the principles laid down in the earlier case of Jagadish Mandal Vs. This works to a great disadvantage to the Government and the Public Sector.” 21. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. reported in (2012) 8 SCC 216 has reiterated the principles laid down in the earlier case of Jagadish Mandal Vs. State of Orissa reported in (2007) 14 SCC 517 as hereunder : “22. Judicial review of administrative action is intended to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, bias and mala fides. Its purpose is to check whether choice or decision is made ‘lawfully’ and not to check whether choice or decision is ‘sound’. When the power of judicial review is invoked in matters relating to tenders or award of contracts, certain special features should be borne in mind. A contract is a commercial transaction. Evaluating tenders and awarding contracts are essentially commercial functions. Principles of equity and natural justice stay at a distance. If the decision relating to award of contract is bona fide and is in public interest, courts will not, in exercise of power of judicial review, interfere even if a procedural aberration or error in assessment or prejudice to a tenderer, is made out. The power of judicial review will not be permitted to be invoked to protect private interest at the cost of public interest, or to decide contractual disputes. The tenderer or contractor with a grievance can always seek damages in a civil court. Attempts by unsuccessful tenderers with imaginary grievances, wounded pride and business rivalry, to make mountains out of molehills of some technical/procedural violation or some prejudice to self, and persuade courts to interfere by exercising power of judicial review, should be resisted. Such interferences, either interim or final, may hold up public works for years, or delay relief and succour to thousands and millions and may increase the project cost manifold. Therefore, a court before interfering in tender or contractual matters in exercise of power of judicial review, should pose to itself the following questions: (i) Whether the process adopted or decision made by the authority is mala fide or intended to favour someone; OR Whether the process adopted or decision made is so arbitrary and irrational that the court can say: ‘the decision is such that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could have reached’; (ii) Whether public interest is affected. If the answers are in the negative, there should be no interference under Article 226. Cases involving blacklisting or imposition of penal consequences on a tenderer/contractor or distribution of State largesse (allotment of sites/shops, grant of licences, dealerships and franchises) stand on a different footing as they may require a higher degree of fairness in action.” 22. There is another aspect of the matter which this Court has noticed. There are 9(nine) nos. of petitioners which have joined together in this writ petition. Though the causes of action may be similar, the same are independent. Without even going to the aspect as to whether a common petition would be maintainable or not, it is seen that Court Fee of only one petition has been paid. Further, in paragraph 1 of the petition, it has been disclosed that the petitioners are Private Limited Companies / Firm and interestingly, all of their addresses are identical which have been given as “Ward No.10, Jaswanta Road, Pan Bazar, Guwahati, Assam – 781 001” 23. From the documents annexed to the petition, the registered offices of the petitioners appear to be in various locations in the State of West Bengal. It is not understood as to why all the 9(nine) petitioners could have a particular address in the State of Assam. The address is also apparently wholly vague. 24. This Court has noticed that even the affidavit accompanying the writ petition is not in accordance with law. The deponent claims to be the Director of the petitioner no. 1 and the authorized signatory of the petitioner’s Company. However, there is no statement that the deponent has been authorized by the other petitioners. Though certain certificates have been annexed regarding such authorization, in absence of a statement in the affidavit, the same would not be sufficient. It is needles to state that in a writ petition, the affidavit is of paramount importance as there is no further scope of adducing evidence or cross-examination. 25. Apart from the aspect of lacking in merits in the instant writ petition, the conduct of the petitioners in approaching a Court of Equity is not above board. 26. In view of the above, the writ petition stands dismissed.