JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Acting Chief Justice Aggrieved by the award of tender in favour of respondent No.3, the petitioner has filed the instant petition for grant of following substantive relief: “A This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to quash and set aside the oral orders of allotment dated 28.3.2023, in favour of the respondent No.3 with regard to the tender for Doorstep Delivery of Foodgrains (PDS) from H.P State Civil Supplies Corporation Wholesale Godown, Bhattakuffar to Fair Price Shops, Tehsil Shimla and Sunni and adjoining areas and rejection order dated 24.5.2023 Annexure P-3 and the respondents No.1 & 2 may be directed to allot the tender in question to the petitioner Society being the lowest bidder.” 2. Respondent No.2, i.e., Department of Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs vide notice dated 9.3.2023 invited online tenders for Doorstep Delivery of Foodgrains (PDS) from its own wholesale godown at Bhattakuffar to the fair price shops falling in Tehsil Shimla and Sunni. 3. The tender notice also contained the details of the fair price shops to which the foodgrains were to be transported. The terms and conditions of the tender provided that the tenderers were required to quote the rate of transportation of foodgrains per quintal. Alongwith the bill, the tenderers were required to deposit a sum of Rs.5 lacs in the account of District Controller, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer affairs on or before 11.00 a.m. on 28.3.2023. The tenders were to be opened and allotted thereafter and the period of tender was w.e.f. April 2023 to March 2025, i.e., two years. The petitioner was one of the participants in the tender and was bonafidely expecting the tender to be allotted in its favour. However, the same was allotted in favour of respondent No.3. 4. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred a representation dated 19.5.2023 (Annexure P-2) to the Deputy Commissioner, Shimla seeking appropriate action in the matter on the ground that in fact the petitioner was the lowest bidder and, therefore, the tender had wrongly been allotted to respondent No.3. However, the petitioner vide letter dated 24.05.2023 was informed that the tender process had been completed according to the procedure and as per terms and conditions laid down in the tender document. 5. However, the petitioner vide letter dated 24.05.2023 was informed that the tender process had been completed according to the procedure and as per terms and conditions laid down in the tender document. 5. It is vehemently urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.3 has wrongly been chosen to be the lowest bidder by merely adding up the total rates quoted for different destinations/locations, without taking into account the weight of the foodgrains to be transported. It is also urged that the foodgains to be transported from the wholesale godowns of the respondent/Corporation to different fair price shops is pre- determined and pre-fixed. The total expenses involved thus is to be worked out by multiplying the foodgrains to be transported to a particular fair price shop with the rate per quintal quoted and then adding up the total expenses involved in transporting foodgrains to different shops. However, respondent No. 3 has been determined as the lowest bidder by wrongly adding up the rates per quintal offered by him for different destinations/fair price shops, which in the instant case comes to Rs.9,770/- as against a sum of Rs. 14,571/- in the case of the petitioner. It is urged that there are 122 different locations/fair price shops to which foodgrains are to be transported and in case the rates are worked out in the manner as suggested by the petitioner, then it would be noticed that the rates quoted by the petitioner would work out to Rs.11,76,890.84/- per month, whereas in the case of respondent No.3, it worked out to Rs.12,19,456.20/- per month. Meaning thereby, there will be a monthly difference of Rs.42,565/-, which in the tender period of two years would come to Rs.10,21,560/-. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and found that it was not the case of the petitioner that the respondents have not adhered to the terms and conditions of the tender. Rather it has been admitted by the petitioner that the tenderers were to fill the tender per quintal including all the expenses upto each of the fair price shop. This condition in fact is envisaged and provided for in the tender notice itself, as would be evident from Clause 7 thereof, which reads as under:- “7. Rather it has been admitted by the petitioner that the tenderers were to fill the tender per quintal including all the expenses upto each of the fair price shop. This condition in fact is envisaged and provided for in the tender notice itself, as would be evident from Clause 7 thereof, which reads as under:- “7. Instead of filling the tender at the rate of per kilometer, it will be mandatory for the tenderers to fill the tender per quintal including all the expenses up to each fair price shop. Otherwise the tender will not be valid.” 7. The determination of L-1 is provided for in Clause 9, which reads as under:- “9. The determination of L-1 will be based on the minimum rate of total sum of these rates filled for fair price shops attached with the concerned wholesale Godown .” 8. Once the respondents have adhered to the terms and conditions of the tender, it is not open to this Court to relax or substitute the tender conditions. That apart once the petitioner very well knew the terms and conditions of the contract of the tender and participated in the same with its eyes wide open, it is not open to him to assail the conditions of the tender. 9. The award of contract, whether it is by a private party or a public party or the State, is essentially a commercial transaction. The State authorities can choose its own method to arrive at the decision. It can fix its own terms for inviting tender and that is not open to the judicial scrutiny. But the State, its Corporations, instrumentalities and agencies are bound by its norms, standards and the procedures laid down by them which cannot be departed from them arbitrarily. Being essentially commercial functions, the principles of equity and natural justice stay at a distance in such matters, particularly, when the decision related to award of tender is bonafide and in accordance with the procedure laid down. 10. Having said so, we find no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. 11. Being essentially commercial functions, the principles of equity and natural justice stay at a distance in such matters, particularly, when the decision related to award of tender is bonafide and in accordance with the procedure laid down. 10. Having said so, we find no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. 11. However, before parting, we would like to observe that even though respondent No.2 had initially towed the line of the petitioner with regard to arriving at a conclusion of lowest bidder as per its letter addressed to the District Controller, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs dated 19.9.2023, which reads as under:- “Kindly refer to your office letter No.FDS-CBA-DSD-2023-25-4998 dated 30 th August, 2023 on the subject cited above. In this connection, it is intimated that after examination of the matter at Directorate level, it has been decided that at the rates quoted by L1 bidder as compared to L2 and other bidders, the amount for transportation of the foodgrains is more as compared to the total amount calculated for L2/other bidders. In that scenario, the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman is empowered to cancel the same and reinvite the tender. Further, it should be ensured that in retender document, the quantity to be transported to Fair Price Shops will also be specified, so that the tender be awarded to the bidder on the basis of the total lowest bill amount of the quantity to be transported to the Fair Price Shops, so that loophole in the present tender system be plugged resulting in saving of the public money.” 12. Nonetheless, respondent No.2 took no steps whatsoever to annul or cancel the tender, which otherwise has to come to an end in March, 2025. 13. Therefore, in this background, we need to clarify that even though in the instant case, we have upheld the awarding of the tender in favour of respondent No.3, but that shall not come in the way of the respondents in future in case they choose to alter and change the conditions of the tender by bringing it in conformity with the observations contained in the letter dated 19.9.2023 (supra). Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.