JUDGMENT : A.S. SUPEHIA, J. 1. RULE. Learned advocates appearing for the respective respondents waive service of notice of Rule. 2. Since extreme urgency is cited by the learned senior advocates, the matter has been taken up for final hearing. 3. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following prayers : - “A. Your lordships be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ in the nature of mandamus to restrain the respondent 1 to accept the bid of respondent 2 as the same does not meet the tender requirements; B. Your lordships be pleased to declare that the bid of respondent 2 is not valid and the same is liable to be rejected as not meeting tender requirements. C. Pending admission and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships will be pleased to stay the further proceedings and awarding of the Tender being "Overall Development, Operation and Management of Rann Utsav Destination at Dhordo, Kutch, Gujarat" D. Such other and further relief that is just, fit and expedient in the facts and circumstances of the case may be granted.” BRIEF FACTS: 4. The petitioner is organizing large-scale public events, exhibitions, trade fairs, cultural and sports festivals etc. including Rann Utsav at Dhordo Tent City, Kachchh since 2013. 5. The respondent No.1 – Tourism Corporation of Gujarat Limited is incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and 100% subsidiary owned by the Government of Gujarat. It is organizing "Rann Utsav" at the White Salt Desert near Village Dhordo, Kachchh by employing contractors and agencies. 6. Since the tenure of the petitioner had ended, the respondent No.1 invited bids from the interested builders for Overall Development, Operation and Management of Rann Utsav Destination at Dhordo, Kachchh, Gujarat. 7. The respondent No.2, is a bidder along with the petitioner herein, who had bid for the present Tender. The writ petition pertains to the component for deployment of electric / diesel buses and other support infrastructure for ferrying visitors to White Rann from parking developed by Respondent No. 1. 8. The writ petition pertains to the component pursuant to the Request for Proposal (RFP), the bidders had placed their bids. The present dispute arises out of the bids placed for the sub-project, titled as “Electric Buses and other support infrastructure”. 8. The writ petition pertains to the component pursuant to the Request for Proposal (RFP), the bidders had placed their bids. The present dispute arises out of the bids placed for the sub-project, titled as “Electric Buses and other support infrastructure”. By way of the said project, the Agency (Contractor) was to provide for buses to commute from the bus station till, the White Salt Desert. 9. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No.2, on the suggestion made by the respondent No.1, modified the financial bid, more particularly Annexure-4, which pertains to inviting the service Buses (Diesel and Electric) and other support infrastructure from parking to White Rann. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER 10. Learned senior advocate Mr.Shalin Mehta, appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner and the respondent No.2 submitted their financial bids to the respondent No.1 for all the sub-projects of the present contract. He has further pointed out the RFP, more particularly, Stage 4 – Evaluation of Financial Bids. While inviting the attention of this Court to Clause 4.4.4 of the RFP, which pertains to the electric buses read with the Annexure-I and Annexure-4 of the Financial Bid, it is submitted that the respondent No.2 had filled in two Annexures-4, which is impermissible. It is pointed out that the petitioner had sent an Email on 14.08.2024 at 5:30 p.m., to the respondent No.1 pointing out the discrepancy in filling up the Financial Bid, more particularly Annexure-4. It is submitted that as soon as such discrepancy was pointed out by the petitioner, the respondent No.1 on the very same day at 9:13 p.m., asked the respondent No.2 to submit the modified Annexure-4, which pertains to detailed breakup of price bid for bus services and accordingly, the respondent No.2 re-submitted the Annexure-4, which forms the part of the Financial Bid. 11. It is submitted that this is impermissible in terms of RFP, since the action of the respondent No.1 inviting the respondent No.2 to resubmit the Annexure-4 would amount to violation of the terms of the RFP. Learned senior advocate Mr.Mehta, in this regard, has pointed out Clauses 1.5, 1.5.9, 1.5.10 and 1.5.11 of the RFP and has submitted that Clause 1.5.10 permits the bidder to seek clarification, whereas Clause 1.5.11 does not envisage any clarification, as the same pertains to the Financial Bid. Learned senior advocate Mr.Mehta, in this regard, has pointed out Clauses 1.5, 1.5.9, 1.5.10 and 1.5.11 of the RFP and has submitted that Clause 1.5.10 permits the bidder to seek clarification, whereas Clause 1.5.11 does not envisage any clarification, as the same pertains to the Financial Bid. Learned senior advocate Mr.Mehta, has further referred to the Corrigendum-6, which provides modified Annexure-I to Financial Bid Submission Form and the conditions mentioned therein. It is submitted that the terms and conditions mentioned below the modified Annexure-I, which prescribes Financial Bids Submission Form, clearly mandates that the bidders have to compulsory upload the detailed breakup of the cost of items mentioned therein as per the format and in case, there is any error or omission whether accidental or otherwise, the bid response is to be treated as non-responsive. 12. Further, it is contended by the learned senior advocate Mr.Mehta that as per the said Corrigendum-6 and in response to pre-bid queries, more particularly to the Clause No.2.3.2 and point No.4, he has submitted that the bidders were advised to provide the detailed breakup as per the modified Annexure-4 and since the respondent No.2 did not comply and fill up the Annexure-4 as per the prescribed format and submitted two Annexure-4, the same would be in violation of the tender document. It is submitted that the Annexure-4, which was initially submitted by the respondent No.2, no annual payments for seven years are reflected therein and hence, his Bid ought to have been declared as non-responsive by the respondent No.1. 13. Learned senior advocate Mr.Mehta has also attempted to satisfy the calculation of the number of the buses vis-a-vis the distance, the timings and number of passengers before us and has submitted that the amount and the number of buses, which have been suggested in the modified annexures, by the respondent No.2, do not reconcile with each other. 14. In support of his submissions, learned senior advocate Mr.Mehta has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of West Bengal State Electricity Board Vs. Patel Engineering Co. Ltd., and others, (2001) 2 S.C.C. 451 . By placing reliance on the said judgment, it is submitted that even if it is assumed that the respondent No.2 has committed mistake, the same could not have been permitted to be rectified by the respondent No.1. Patel Engineering Co. Ltd., and others, (2001) 2 S.C.C. 451 . By placing reliance on the said judgment, it is submitted that even if it is assumed that the respondent No.2 has committed mistake, the same could not have been permitted to be rectified by the respondent No.1. Reliance is also placed by learned senior advocate Mr.Mehta on the decision of High Court of Delhi in the case of Larsen and Toubro Limited and others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and others, 2010 : DHC : 4402- DB. 15. Finally, learned senior advocate Mr.Mehta has submitted that in fact, by the present writ petition, the petitioner is not seeking to award it the contract, but it is urged that it was always open for the respondent No.1 to scrap the tender since there are only two bidders. Thus, it is urged that the petition may be allowed in terms of the prayers. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT NO.1-(TCGL) 16. In response to the aforesaid submissions, learned senior advocate Mr.Mihir Joshi, while placing reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of National High Speed Rail Corporation Limited vs. Mentecarlo Limited and another, (2022) 6 S.C.C. 401 , has submitted that the High Court should be extremely circumspect in exercise of its jurisdiction, while entertaining petition in the matters of contract, such as the present one. It is submitted that the judicial review for examination of the tender process is very restricted. Learned senior advocate Mr.Joshi, has further submitted that the respondent No.1 has neither acted mala fidely nor has intended to favour anyone and has acted reasonably in accordance with law and hence, the tender process cannot be set aside on the grounds urged before this Court by the petitioner. It is submitted that all the essential conditions are adhered to by the respondent No.1 and since, it was noticed by the respondent No.1 that there was some discrepancy in the Annexure-4 submitted by the respondent No.2, it was called upon to rectify the error. He has however, submitted that there is no difference in the final amount submitted by the respondent No.2, even after the submission of fresh Annexure-4 and the same would remain as such. Learned senior advocate Mr.Joshi has further placed reliance on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Batra Medicos and others Vs. He has however, submitted that there is no difference in the final amount submitted by the respondent No.2, even after the submission of fresh Annexure-4 and the same would remain as such. Learned senior advocate Mr.Joshi has further placed reliance on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Batra Medicos and others Vs. Union of India and others, 2023 : DHC : 5869-DB, in support of his submissions, wherein the Delhi High Court has reiterated the scope of the judicial review. 17. Learned senior advocate Mr.Joshi has also placed reliance on the Clause 1.7.1 of the RFP and has submitted that the respondent No.1 has the authority to seek clarification from any of the bidder and hence accordingly it has sought clarification and has advised the respondent No.2 to resubmit the Annexure-4, which pertains to Financial Bid. It is however, admitted by the learned senior advocate Mr.Joshi that the Annexure-4 is compulsory and is part of the Financial Bid and cannot be read separately from Annexure-I. Thus, it is urged that the tender process may not be interfered with. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT NO.2 - 18. Learned senior advocate Mr.Mihir Thakore, appearing for the respondent No.2 while opposing the present writ petition has submitted that the bid of the respondent No.2 cannot be held unresponsive in view of the re-submission of Annexure-4. While placing reliance on the Corrigendum-6 and the Clause 2.3.2 and the Point No.4, which is issued in response to pre-bid queries, it is submitted that the respondent No.1, who is the authority, can always assume the values, at his discretion, in case there is found mismatch or discrepancy between the value filled in the detailed breakup and hence, since this provision empowers the respondent No.1 to ultimate assume the values, the re-submissions of the Annexure-4 clarifying the computation of the detailed break-up of price bid for bus services cannot be held to be detrimental to the bid of respondent No.2. It is submitted that the respondent no.2 was unaware of the method of submitting the break up hence, a minor error occurred at its end. 19. It is submitted that the respondent no.2 was unaware of the method of submitting the break up hence, a minor error occurred at its end. 19. Learned senior advocate Mr.Thakore, has endeavored to satisfy us by comparing the computation values filled in by the respondent No.2 in the initial ‘Annexures-4’ and the modified ‘Annexure-4 and has submitted that in fact, the final amount remains unchanged and hence, the minor discrepancy, which had occurred by submitting two annexures earlier, cannot impact the bid of the respondent No.2. Thus, it is urged that the present writ petition may not be entertained. Learned senior advocate Mr.Thakore, in support of his submission has placed reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of BTL EPC Ltd. vs. Macawber Beekay Pvt. Ltd., and others, 2023 S.C.C. OnLine SC 1223, and TATA Motors Ltd. Vs. Brihan Mumbai Electic Supply & Tansport Undertaking (BEST) and Ors., 2023 S.C.C. OnLine SC 671, reiterating the submissions advanced by learned senior advocate Mr. Joshi with regard to the scope of judicial review in tender matters. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION :- 20. We have examined the RFP and the Financial Bids Submission Forms of the petitioner as well as the respondent No.2. The Financial Bid submitted by the petitioner is Rs.(-) 9.98,86,659.5 and the Bid submitted of the respondent No.2 is of Rs.(+)8,03,41,720.73. 21. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent No.1 has allowed the respondent No.2 to resubmit a modified Financial Bid, which is impermissible in view of the specific clauses of the RFP. The relevant clauses for consideration are as under : - “1.5.9 The Technical Bid must not include any financial information. 1.5.10 During evaluation of Bids, TCGL may, at its discretion, ask a Bidder for further clarifications and or information. The request for clarification and the response thereto shall only be in writing The Bidder shall have to reply to the clarification within the period as specified from the date of receipt of the request failing which the Bid of such a Bidder shall be rejected and TCGL shall have the right to forfeit the EMD of such Bidder Part 3 - Financial Bid-to be strictly submitted online only 1.5.11 In preparing the Financial Bid, Bidders are expected to take into account the requirements and conditions of the RFP documents. Considering the multiple tourist attractions in the site, and the Rann Utsav being an establish tourist destination in the State, the Bidders are expected to estimate the revenue potential from various heads as mentioned in Annexure 1 : Financial Bid Submission Form prior to filling up the Financial Bid.” 22. The petitioner on noticing the discrepancies in the Bid submitted by the respondent No.2 – M/s.Praveg Ltd., sent an Email on 14.08.2024 at 5:36 p.m., to the respondent No.1, pointing out that the respondent No.2 has altered the Financial Bid, more particularly Annexure-4 by submitting the costs on a per-unit basis for each bus instead of providing lump-sum annual amount or annual figure for entire scope of bus services as required by the RFP. The petitioner has further pointed out the calculation vis-a-vis the number of buses engaged during the tourist flow. 23. On the very same day i.e. on 14.08.2024 at 9:13 p.m., the respondent No.1 informed the respondent No.2 to resubmit the modified Annexure-4 with detailed breakup of price Bid for Buses Services, Event Management and Branding Work, specifically for the sub-component of “Annual payment being sought for providing services of electric Buses and other support infrastructure from parking of White Rann.” It is specifically mentioned by the respondent No.1 that the details should match with the modified Annexure-I i.e. the Financial Bid Submission Form as submitted by the respondent No.2 in his original Bid, strictly as per the format of RFP and relevant corrigendum. Thus, the respondent No.1 at the first instance did not find the details of modified Annexure-4 filled-in by the respondent No.2 relating to the breakup of price list for Bus Services and other heads in accordance with RFP and the respondent No.2 was called upon to resubmit the modified Annexure-4. 24. Accordingly on 15.08.2024, the respondent No.2 informed the respondent No.1 that they would be resubmitting the details as demanded by the respondent No.1 along with affidavit-cum-declaration. The affidavit-cum-declaration dated 15.08.2024 filed by the respondent No.2 specifically mentions that they are re-submitting the modified Annexure-4 and it is also ensured by them that the values will now match with the modified Annexure-I i.e. the Financial Bid Submission Form. ISSUES : - 25. The affidavit-cum-declaration dated 15.08.2024 filed by the respondent No.2 specifically mentions that they are re-submitting the modified Annexure-4 and it is also ensured by them that the values will now match with the modified Annexure-I i.e. the Financial Bid Submission Form. ISSUES : - 25. The issues, which fall for deliberation of this Court is, whether the details which were required to be filled in as per the requirement of the tender document and as per the format of the Annexure-4, which the respondent No.2, at the initial stage while filling up the Bid, has committed an error will be fatal for his Bid and the same can be held as non-responsive or not, and whether it was permissible for the respondent No.1 to call upon the respondent No.1 to re-submit the Annexure-4 of Financial Bid. 26. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer to the Corrigendum-6, which is issued in response to the pre-bid queries. 27. In response to the pre-bid queries, the Clause No.2.3.2 and point No.4 of the marketing table, which pertains to the discretion of the authority to seek breakup of the Financial Bid from the preferred bidder as per Annexure-1(B), it is declared that the same may be read as “modified Annexure-4: Detailed breakup of price bid for Bus Services, Event Management and Branding Work.” The bidders shall be required to compulsorily fill the same, and reflect the annual payments for 07 years, for each sub-project as mentioned above in the Financial Bid format. The detailed breakup shall form the ground for negotiations and Bidders are advised to take note that in an event of any computational mistakes, mismatch or discrepancy between the values filled in the detailed breakup, the authority, shall assume the values, at its discretion and the same shall be binding on the Bidder. Thus, the respondent no.2 cannot plead ignorance and contend that he was not aware as to how the actual breakup was to be tendered and hence, a discrepancy has occurred. 28. The Annexure-1 and Annexure-4 refer to the Financial Bid Submission Forms. So far as the Financial Bid Submission Form at Annexure-1 is concerned, there is no dispute in this regard. 28. The Annexure-1 and Annexure-4 refer to the Financial Bid Submission Forms. So far as the Financial Bid Submission Form at Annexure-1 is concerned, there is no dispute in this regard. The modified Annexure-4, which provides for detailed breakup of price bid for Bus Services, Event Management and Branding Work, is interlaced with Annexure-1 under the sub-head “B”, which prescribes “Sub-projects where Authority shall pay to the Agency”,. There are three Items prescribed, which pertain to first - (“6”) Annual payment being sought for providing services of “Electric Buses and other support infrastructure from parking to White Rann” - second (“7”) Annual payment being sought towards “Even Management Services including erection of Temporary Infrastructures and third - (“8”) Annual payment being sought towards “Undertake Brancking work on Bhuj to While Rann road.” Below the statement and under the Head of Annexure-1, the bidders are put to notice that “Bidders will be compulsorily required to upload the detailed break-up of the cost for items under S.No.6, 7 and 8 above, as per the format enclosed herewith – Format is “Annexure-4”, in which, the discrepancy or mistake has been committed by the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 filled in two Annexure-4 under this component. 29. At this stage, we may refer to the specific conditions mentioned below Financial Bid, the same are as under : - “Note : The financial bid shall be calculated based on the difference between the "Subtotal of Payment to be made by the Agency to the Authority for all seven years and Subtotal of Payments to be made by the Authority to the Agency for all seven years. I hereby certify and accept the following: 1. The Agreement shall be for a period of 7 years. 2. I, as a Bidder, have inspected the existing premises and acquainted myself before Bidding for the said Project 3. I certify that I have gone through the Tender document, and I have understood and agree to the terms and conditions as mentioned in this Document. We declare that the information stated above and enclosed is complete and absolutely correct and any error or omission therein, accidental or otherwise, as a result of which our Bid is found to be non-responsive, will be sufficient for TCGL to reject our Bid and forfeit our EMD in full. We declare that the information stated above and enclosed is complete and absolutely correct and any error or omission therein, accidental or otherwise, as a result of which our Bid is found to be non-responsive, will be sufficient for TCGL to reject our Bid and forfeit our EMD in full. I abide by the above offer/quote and terms & conditions of the tender document and the LOA if TCGL selects us as the Preferred Bidder.” 30. The aforesaid declaration specifically mandates that if any error or omission, accidental or otherwise in the information is found, as a result of which the Bid is found to be non-responsive, the same will be sufficient for the TCGL to reject the Bid. Both the petitioner as well as the respondent No.2 is bound by the declaration of the tender document as per aforenoted conditions / declaration. The respondent No.1 has admitted that the details provided under the Annexure-4, is compulsory and integral part of Annexure-I of the Financial Bid and it has been erroneously filled in by the respondent No.2, and was not in the prescribed format. After coming to know about the irregularity as pointed out by the petitioner, the respondent No.1 ought to have invoked the aforesaid declaration, and should have held the Bid of the respondent no.2 as non-responsive. 31. We have perused the Annexure-4, in which the detailed break-up was required to be given by the respondent No.2. As per the conditions of the tender document, the details were given in lump-sum however, the respondent No.2 has filled in two Annexure-4 Forms; one is at page No.232 and another is at page No.233. First Annexure-4 refers to the “Annual payment with regard to the Electric Buses”, whereas another Annexure-4 refers to “Annual payment for providing services of the Diesel Buses.” Nothing is pointed out from the tender document, whether it is permissible to fill up two Annexure forms without annual payment details. It is also not in dispute that no annual payments are reflected in the Annexure-4, which is an important facet of the Financial Bid. Hence, the respondent No.1 cannot contend that the re-submissions of the details of the Annexure-4 is permissible, since it would only amount only to the breakup of price Bid for Bus Services, and will not make any difference in the final amount. Hence, the respondent No.1 cannot contend that the re-submissions of the details of the Annexure-4 is permissible, since it would only amount only to the breakup of price Bid for Bus Services, and will not make any difference in the final amount. If such an approach is permitted, the same will be an anathema to the sanctity of the tender document and any bidder can be allowed to resubmit his Financial Bid, if it is found to be inaccurate, in first place. The tender document under the Financial Bid Submission Form contains a stringent condition that the bidders have to compulsorily upload the detailed breakup of the cost for items mentioned therein as per the “format” enclosed i.e. Annexure-4. Unquestionably, the respondent No.1 did not follow the instruction / condition of the Financial Bid. 32. It is interesting to note that such discrepancy has been pointed out by the petitioner to the respondent No.1 vide his Emails dated 14.08.2024 at 5:36 p.m.; at 9:30 p.m., and reacting the email, the respondent No.1 informed the respondent No.2 to re-submit the modified Annexure-4. Thus, in fact, by calling upon the respondent No.2 to re-submit a modified Annexure-4, the respondent No.1 in fact, has allowed the re-submission of the Financial Bid. The respondent No.2 is very well aware about the details to be filled in the “format” in response to the pre-bid queries in Corrigendum-6, the bidders are specifically clarified about providing the details of estimate relating to the requirement of buses based on the tourists footfalls and they are also advised to take note of the modified clauses 4.4.1, which includes in Section 2 of the said corrigendum. The respondent No.2 cannot contend that he was unable to understand the requirements of the Financial Bid comprising of Annexure-1 and Annexure-4. It is also an admitted fact by the respondent No.1 that initially there was discrepancy between the final amount suggested in Annexure-I and the breakup given by the respondent No.2 in two Annexures of Annexure-4. It is not the case of the respondent No.1 that both the amounts of Annexure-1 and two Annexures of Annexure-4, which are initially submitted, were same and only a clarification was sought explaining the details as mandated by the Annexure-4. There was difference of amount between the Annexure-I and two Annexures of Annexure-4, which were filled in initially by the respondent No.2. There was difference of amount between the Annexure-I and two Annexures of Annexure-4, which were filled in initially by the respondent No.2. Thus, in fact the respondent No.1 has suggested the respondent No.2 to resubmit a modified Annexure-4, in order to reconcile with the amount of the Annexure-1 (Financial Bid Submissions Form). 33. Accordingly, as directed by the respondent no.1, the respondent No.2 immediately re-submits his modified Annexure-4, which falls in line with the amount in Annexure-I. The action of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 cannot fall within category of clarification, but it would amount to re-submission of the Financial Bid by altering the amounts and formats by replacing the two Annexure-4 format, with a single Annexure-4 format. 34. It is also admitted by the respondent No.1 that as per the clauses mentioned hereinabove, relating to Technical Bid and Financial Bid, no power is reserved in the tender document for seeking clarification so far as the Financial Bid is concerned. If the Clauses 1.5.9 and 1.5.10 of the RFP, which relate to the technical bid is read in juxtaposition with Clause 1.5.11, which relates to the Financial Bid, it is evident that no request for clarification on the part of the bidder has been stipulated, so far as the Financial Bid is concerned. 35. The respondent No.1 in order to justify its action of calling upon the respondent No.2 to resubmit the modified Annexure-4 has placed reliance on the Clause 1.7.1 of the RFP. A fair reading of the said clause, does not in any manner, gives any right to the respondent No.1 to call upon any of the bidder to re-submit the Financial Bid. 36. Keeping in mind the aforementioned analysis, we shall now deal with the judgment cited by the learned senior advocates appearing for the respective parties. 37. The judgments, which are cited before us are repetitive hence, we are not inclined to deal with each of them. 38. The Supreme Court in case of National High Speed Rail Corporation Limited (supra), has considered all the judgments, which are cited before us. The Supreme Court in the said case has summarized array of the decisions referred therein in paragraph No.29 of the said judgment. “29. 38. The Supreme Court in case of National High Speed Rail Corporation Limited (supra), has considered all the judgments, which are cited before us. The Supreme Court in the said case has summarized array of the decisions referred therein in paragraph No.29 of the said judgment. “29. Thus, from the aforesaid decisions, it can be seen that a Court before interfering in a contract matter in exercise of powers 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"? And (ii) Whether the public interest is affected? If the answers to the above questions are in negative, then there should be no interference under Article 226." 30. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand and when a conscious decision was taken by the JICC/JICA holding the Bid submitted by the original writ petitioner as non-responsive/ non-compliant to the technical requirements of the Bidding Documents and suffering from material deviation, we are of the opinion that the High Court has erred in interfering with the tender process and interfering with the decision of the JICC/JICA rejecting the Bid submitted by the original writ petitioner at technical stage. 39. In fact, in the said case before the Supreme Court, the authority rejected the bid of the original writ petitioner as non- responsive / non-compliant to the technical requirements of the Bidding Documents, which suffered from material deviation and the High Court had interfered with the tender process hence, the Supreme Court has cautioned the High Courts to exercise its jurisdiction in exceptional cases. In the present case, the facts establish that the respondent No.1 has not acted in a fair manner by calling upon the respondent No.2 to re-submit the Financial Bids in format Annexure-4. 40. In fact, in the case of Central Coalfields Ltd., Vs. In the present case, the facts establish that the respondent No.1 has not acted in a fair manner by calling upon the respondent No.2 to re-submit the Financial Bids in format Annexure-4. 40. In fact, in the case of Central Coalfields Ltd., Vs. SLL-SML (Joint Venture Consortium), (2016) 8 S.C.C. 622 , the Supreme Court has upheld the decision of the authority “Central Coalfields Ltd.,” of treating the bid as non-responsive only because the bank guarantee was not accompanied as per the format prescribed in the bid document. It was held thus : - “32. The core issue in these appeals is not of judicial review of the administrative action of CCL in adhering to the terms of NIT and the GTC prescribed by it while dealing with bids furnished by participants in the bidding process. The core issue is whether CCL acted perversely enough in rejecting the bank guarantee of JVC on the ground that it was not in the prescribed format, thereby calling for judicial review by a constitutional court and interfering with CCL's decision. 37. For JVC to say that its bank guarantee was in terms stricter than the prescribed format is neither here nor there. It is not for the employer or this Court to scrutinise every bank guarantee to determine whether it is stricter than the prescribed format or less rigorous. The fact is that a format was prescribed and there was no reason not to adhere to it. The goalposts cannot be rearranged or asked to be rearranged during the bidding process to affect the right of some or deny a privilege to some. 49. Again, looked at from the point of view of the employer if the courts take over the decision-making function of the employer and make a distinction between essential and non-essential terms contrary to the intention of the employer and thereby rewrite the arrangement, it could lead to all sorts of problems including the one that we are grappling with. For example, the GTC that we are concerned with specifically states in Clause 15.2 that “Any bid not accompanied by an acceptable Bid Security/EMD shall be rejected by the employer as non-responsive”. For example, the GTC that we are concerned with specifically states in Clause 15.2 that “Any bid not accompanied by an acceptable Bid Security/EMD shall be rejected by the employer as non-responsive”. Surely, CCL ex facie intended this term to be mandatory, yet the High Court held that the bank guarantee in a format not prescribed by it ought to be accepted since that requirement was a non- essential term of the GTC. From the point of view of CCL, the GTC has been impermissibly rewritten by the High Court. 55. On the basis of the available case law, we are of the view that since CCL had not relaxed or deviated from the requirement of furnishing a bank guarantee in the prescribed format, insofar as the present appeals are concerned every bidder was obliged to adhere to the prescribed format of the bank guarantee. Consequently, the failure of JVC to furnish the bank guarantee in the prescribed format was sufficient reason for CCL to reject its bid. 56. There is nothing to indicate that the process by which the decision was taken by CCL that the bank guarantee furnished by JVC ought to be rejected was flawed in any manner whatsoever. Similarly, there is nothing to indicate that the decision taken by CCL to reject the bank guarantee furnished by JVC and to adhere to the requirements of NIT and the GTC was arbitrary or unreasonable or perverse in any manner whatsoever.” 41. Thus, as held by the Supreme Court, the format which is prescribed in the tender document has to strictly adhered. It is held that there was no reason not to adhere to it and the goal posts cannot be rearranged or asked to be rearranged during the bidding process to affect the right of someone or deny a privilege to someone. In the present case also, the respondent No.2 did not adhere to the specific format provided in the tender document and on the contrary, the respondent No.1 has tried to re-arrange the goal posts by permitting the respondent No.2 to re-submit the Financial Bid “Annexure-4”, by actually adhering to the format, which was prescribed in the tender document, which it did not do in the first instance. Such a decision of the respondent No.1 would, in fact, be arbitrary and partisan and it will not amount to correction of a clerical error, which is sought to be canvassed by placing reliance on the decision in the case of Tata Motors Limited (supra). 42. It is sought to be canvassed by the respondent No.1 before us that they had only sought clarification from the respondent No.2, which would align with the principle of fairness and transparency in the tendering process and they were fulfilling the duty to ensure the authenticity of the tender process but also safeguarding the public interest. 43. As we have already held that the approach, which has been adopted by the respondent No.1 would not align with the principle of fairness and transparency in the tendering process, but the respondent No.1 has in fact, breached its fairness by calling upon the respondent No.2 to re-submit the Financial Bid in the form of Annexure-4 immediately when the petitioner had drawn the attention to irregularity. It is not the case of the respondent No.1 that the Annexure-4 to the Financial Bid has a different entity and is not connected with the Financial Bid. The Annexure-1 and Annexure-4 are interlaced with each other and both cannot be read separately under the head of Financial Bid but are the integral part of financial Bid. The Clauses of the RFP also mandate the bidders to compulsorily follow the prescribed format by placing their Financial Bids. Hence, it was not open for the respondent No.1 to jump to the aid of the respondent No.2, immediately after receipt of the objection of the petitioner by an Email on 14.08.2024 at 5:36 p.m. Immediately on receipt of the said Email, on the very same day at 9:13 p.m., the respondent No.1 informs the respondent No.2 to re-submit the modified part of the Financial Bid in the form of Annexure-4. The respondent No.1 has attempted to give a “cloak of fairness” to its arbitrary decision. 44. Before us, in fact, it was contended on behalf of the petitioner that they are only seeking that entire tender process may be scraped and they are not seeking that tender may be awarded to them by accepting the bid. The respondent No.1 has attempted to give a “cloak of fairness” to its arbitrary decision. 44. Before us, in fact, it was contended on behalf of the petitioner that they are only seeking that entire tender process may be scraped and they are not seeking that tender may be awarded to them by accepting the bid. When the discrepancy about the respondent No.2 in filling up the Financial Bid was pointed out, the respondent No.1 should have shown its magnanimity by considering the error committed by the respondent No.2 in the Financial Bid and the respondent No.2 should have in all fairness scraped the tender process. 45. On the substratum of the foregoing analysis, we find that the writ petition merits acceptance. Hence, the same is ALLOWED. We declare the Bid of the respondent No.2 as non- responsive and not valid as the same does not meet the tender requirement. It was not open for the respondent No.1 to call upon the respondent No2 to resubmit the Annexure-4 of Financial Bid. Rule is made absolute accordingly. 46. Learned senior advocate Mr.Thakore, appearing for the respondent No.2 has requested for staying of the present judgment and order. 47. The request is not acceded to, as all the respective parties had shown extreme urgency in the matter. 48. For the foregoing reasons also, we are not inclined to stay the present judgment and order.