JUDGMENT : (R. Mukhopadhyay, J. ) : Heard Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Mohan Kumar Dubey, learned A.C. to A.G. appearing for the respondents State and Ms. Richa Sanchita, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.8. 2. In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :- (i) For issuance of a writ of or in the nature of certiorari for quashing of decision of Tender Evaluation Committee dated 04.08.2023 (Annexure-4) with respect to e-Tender Reference No.BCD/BCHZB/ RAMGARH/016/2023-24 whereby NIT has been issued for construction of 6 ACR in UPG High School, Tapin, Mandu Block, District Ramgarh opened without giving intimation of date and time of opening of tender to any of the bidders and wherein technical bid of besides others that of respondent no.8 has been declared to be found in order ignoring the fact that in his bid respondent no.8 has furnished one EMD for Rs.30,000/- pledged to Executive Engineer, BCD, Building Division, Ramgarh (respondent no.6) which was already pledged to some other department i.e. to Executive Engineer Electrical, Electrical Work Division, Ranchi and also the EMD pledged by respondent no.8 was not in accordance with the terms and condition of NIT; (ii) For issuance of a writ of or in the nature of certiorari for quashing of BOQ summary details uploaded online showing respondent no.8 as L-1 in the said tender as opening of his financial bid itself is bad in view of the fact that the technical bid of respondent no.8 was not in order and as such his financial bid ought not to have been opened. (iii) For issuance of a writ of or in the nature of Mandamus for allotment of work to the petitioner who has qualified in technical bid and in financial bid he has been declared L-2 and as such in absence of respondent no.8 he is the lowest bidder; AND Pending final hearing of the instant writ petition respondents concern may be restrained from allotting work to respondent no.8 and to enter into any agreement with respondent no.8 for the work in question. AND/OR For issuance of such other writ(s)/Rule(s)/Order(s)/ direction(s) as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case for doing complete justice to the petitioner. 3. AND/OR For issuance of such other writ(s)/Rule(s)/Order(s)/ direction(s) as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case for doing complete justice to the petitioner. 3. Briefly stated, the facts reveal that the petitioner is a contractor duly registered vide registration certificate dated 06.10.2021 with the Building Construction Department in Category-II for the period 23.09.2021 to 22.09.2026. The e-Procurement Cell of the Office of the Superintending Engineer, Building Construction Department, Building Circle, Hazaribagh had published a Notice Inviting Tender being e-Tender Reference No. BCD/BCHZB/ RAMGARH/016/2023-24 dated 04.07.2023 for construction of 6 ACR in UPG High School, Tapin, Mandu Block, District Ramgarh. The estimated cost of the work was Rs. 68,14,116.00 and the earnest money was fixed at Rs. 1,36,300.00. The tender was for Category-II contractors. It has been stated that the petitioner had participated in the tender along with other eligible contractors and though the Tender Evaluation Committee had failed to open the tender on the appointed day of 15.07.2023, but it was opened subsequently on 4.8.2023 and the bids of four participants were found in order: (i) Arun Kumar Kushwaha, Ramgarh (petitioner); (ii) M/s Wahadar Construction, Hazaribag; (iii) Vijay Kumar Singh (respondent no.8) and (iv) M/s Shree Balaji Eng. Co., Ramgarh. In the financial bid, which was opened the respondent no.8 was declared the L-1 bidder while the petitioner was declared the L-2 bidder and the respondent no.8 has been selected for the work in question. 4. It has been submitted by Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the technical bid of the respondent no.8 should have been rejected at the very threshold. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to Clause 5.1 and 5.2 of the NIT while submitting that the EMD pledged by the respondent no.8 in the present work had already been pledged/submitted by him with the Executive Engineer, Electrical Works Division, Ranchi for an amount of Rs. 30,000 which is dated 22.01.2022. The document related to GST up to date clearance was also incomplete and the petitioner on coming to know about the aforesaid irregularities, had raised an objection before the concerned authority, but such objection did not evoke any response. Mr. 30,000 which is dated 22.01.2022. The document related to GST up to date clearance was also incomplete and the petitioner on coming to know about the aforesaid irregularities, had raised an objection before the concerned authority, but such objection did not evoke any response. Mr. Sinha has submitted that the respondent no.8 has committed fraud with the department and in spite of such malpractices having been brought to the knowledge of the authorities concerned, the respondent - authorities have allotted the work to the respondent no.8 for reasons best known to them. 5. Mr. Mohan Kumar Dubey, learned AC to AG appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 1 to 7 has submitted that the respondent no.8 was declared the L-1 bidder and the petitioner L-2 bidder after competitive assessment of their quoted rate/ price bid. The respondent No.8 had submitted his bid along with duly pledged earnest money of Rs. 30,000 after release of the same from Electrical Executive Engineer, Electrical Works Division, Ranchi. He has referred to the certificate of the Sub- Postmaster in support of such contention. Mr. Dubey has submitted that the entire process of technical and financial evaluation was transparent and the learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any arbitrariness in the entire tender process. 6. Ms. Richa Sanchita, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.8 has denied the allegations leveled by the petitioner that the EMD pledged with the present work was already pledged with another department in relation to another work. It has been submitted that the respondent no.8 had furnished up to date GST returns and in support of the same a photocopy of the GST report dated 16.6.2023 has been brought on record by the learned counsel for the respondent no.8. 7. The petitioner is the unsuccessful bidder who has challenged the nomination of the respondent no.8 as L-1 bidder mostly and primarily on technical grounds concentrating largely on the earnest money deposit, which is dehors clause 5.1 of the Notice Inviting Tender dated 4.7.2023. Clause 5.1 reads as follows :- “5.1 Duly pledged Earnest Money, if any, lying with the concerned Executive Engineer against work already completed shall not be adjusted by transfer. Clause 5.1 reads as follows :- “5.1 Duly pledged Earnest Money, if any, lying with the concerned Executive Engineer against work already completed shall not be adjusted by transfer. In such case the tenderer is required to get the same refunded/ released and then attach the same with the tender, duly pledged afresh for the work for which tender is filled.” Clause 5.2 speaks of rejection of bid document if it is not accompanied with required earnest money in the prescribed manner. 8. Clause 5.1 of the NIT arrests pledging of earnest money lying with the concerned Executive Engineer against work already completed by transfer and in such case, the tenderer is required to get the same released and then attach it with the tender which is to be filed. Though it has been asserted by the petitioner that clause 5.1 of the NIT has been violated by the respondent no.8, but the petitioner has failed to bring anything on record in support of such assertion and the photocopy of the pass books indicating pledging of NSC in different departments does not subscribe to such view. 9. The counter affidavits of respondent no.1 to 7 and respondent no.8 clearly state about the earnest money of Rs. 30,000/- pledged for the present work after release of the same from Electrical Executive Engineer, Electrical Works Division, Ranchi. A certificate has also been issued by the Sub-Postmaster, District Board, Hazaribagh showing NSC pledged with Executive Engineer, Building Construction Department, Ramgarh. The same therefore is in consonance with Clause 5.1 of the NIT. The act on the part of the respondent no.1 to 7 cannot therefore be termed to be arbitrary or unreasonable. Even otherwise, the scope of judicial review of the Writ Court is very limited and in a recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s N.G. Projects Limited vs. M/s Vinod Kumar Jain and others reported in (2022) 6 SCC 127 , it has been held as follows: 23. In view of the above judgments of this Court, the Writ Court should refrain itself from imposing its decision over the decision of the employer as to whether or not to accept the bid of a tenderer. The Court does not have the expertise to examine the terms and conditions of the present day economic activities of the State and this limitation should be kept in view. The Court does not have the expertise to examine the terms and conditions of the present day economic activities of the State and this limitation should be kept in view. Courts should be even more reluctant in interfering with contracts involving technical issues as there is a requirement of the necessary expertise to adjudicate upon such issues. The approach of the Court should be not to find fault with magnifying glass in its hands, rather the Court should examine as to whether the decision-making process is after complying with the procedure contemplated by the tender conditions. If the Court finds that there is total arbitrariness or that the tender has been granted in a malafide manner, still the Court should refrain from interfering in the grant of tender but instead relegate the parties to seek damages for the wrongful exclusion rather than to injunct the execution of the contract. The injunction or interference in the tender leads to additional costs on the State and is also against public interest. Therefore, the State and its citizens suffer twice, firstly by paying escalation costs and secondly, by being deprived of the infrastructure for which the present-day Governments are expected to work.” 10. We have not detected any arbitrariness in the action of the concerned respondents in the decision-making process itself and on such consideration, we are not inclined to accede to the prayer of the writ petitioner and consequently, this petition stands dismissed. Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands closed.