JUDGMENT : KARDAK ETE, J. 1. Heard Mr. R. Sonar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. G. Tarak, learned Standing Counsel for the Rural Works Department for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Mr. D. Panging, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5. None appears for the respondent No. 6 despite service of notice. 2. Challenges made in this writ petition are to the rejection of Technical Bid of the petitioner vide Technical Bid Evaluation Report dated 02.08.2024 and the Financial Bid Evaluation Report dated 19.08.2024 of the tender process pursuant to the NIeT dated 03.07.2024 issued by the Executive Engineer-DPIU, Rural Works Department, Bameng Division, for construction of “L027-Road from Jomoh to Wallong Village”, Package No. AR0301074 under the Vibrant Village Programme (VVP). 3. Briefly put, the petitioner is a proprietorship firm registered as Class-1AA (B&R) under Civil category contractor in the Public Works Department, Arunachal Pradesh. The petitioner participated in the tender process being NieT dated 03.07.2024, under the VVP for construction of “L027-Road from Jomoh to Wallong Village” (Package No. AR0301074). Challenges are to the manner in which the respondent authorities have acted alleging favouritism to the private respondents and declaring them responsive in the Technical Bid Evaluation Report dated 02.08.2024, despite not fulfilling many terms and conditions of the tender. The petitioner alleged that the respondent authorities have illegally declared the petitioner as non-responsive in the Technical Bid despite fulfilling all the terms and conditions of the tender. 4. Altogether 4 (four) firms have participated in the said tender process. After evaluation of the Technical Bid, the respondent authorities vide Bid Evaluation Report dated 02.08.2024, declared the petitioner firm as non-responsive on the ground of not conforming to Clauses 4.4B (b)(i), 4.4B (b)(ii) and 4.7(i) of the terms and conditions of tender. Thereafter, the Financial Bid of the respondent Nos. 5 & 6 have been evaluated and recommended the respondent No. 5 i.e. M/s Tenzing Construction for award of the work being the L-1 bidder. 5. Mr. R. Sonar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has submitted all the requisite documents pertaining to the said NIeT and there was no scope for rejecting the bid of the petitioner in any manner. The respondent authorities have not specified what kind of misleading or false statement has been made by the petitioner in the bid. Mr. R. Sonar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has submitted all the requisite documents pertaining to the said NIeT and there was no scope for rejecting the bid of the petitioner in any manner. The respondent authorities have not specified what kind of misleading or false statement has been made by the petitioner in the bid. If the respondent cast aspersions about misleading, a Show-Cause notice ought to have been given for its explanation. 6. Mr. Sonar, learned counsel while referring to the Clauses of the Standard Biding Document (SBD), under which the Technical Bid of the petitioner has been rejected, fairly submits that insofar as Clause 4.4B (b) (i), the petitioner has submitted the availability for construction work on hire or lease of the key equipments with the registration numbers particularly the Truck Mounted Water Tanker. However, it is considered to be defective as the same turned out to be a Dumper/Tipper. He, however, submits that since the requirements of providing the equipments of Truck Mounted Water Tanker is not an essential condition of NIeT, it could have been relaxed and accepted. He submits that the availability of construction work of technical personnel has been adequately submitted. Therefore, the rejection of the technical bid of the petitioner is not on defect of essential condition but just on ancillary. 7. Mr. Sonar, learned counsel referring to the various documents submitted by the respondent No. 5, projecting that there were glaring defects warranting the rejection of the bid of the respondent No. 5, submits that the Bank Certificate dated 03.10.2023 issued by the State Bank of India, Dirang, to provide overdraft/credit facilities was not for the present tender work, but for another road called “Construction of road from Dirangto Zimthung”. The affidavit for 25% investment in cash, does not disclose for which work the affidavit has been sworn for. To provide ‘Bid Capacity’ is an essential condition of the contract as per the Clause 4.6 of the SBD. However, the respondent No. 5 has not uploaded the same and its bid was liable to be rejected. He further submits that it was mandatory under Clause 4.4 B (b)(ii) to upload the availability of construction work of Technical Personnel. The respondent No. 5 uploaded an affidavit, dated 20.07.2024, showing Technical Personnel, wherein, for the Field Testing Laboratory category, it has shown 5 (five) engineers. He further submits that it was mandatory under Clause 4.4 B (b)(ii) to upload the availability of construction work of Technical Personnel. The respondent No. 5 uploaded an affidavit, dated 20.07.2024, showing Technical Personnel, wherein, for the Field Testing Laboratory category, it has shown 5 (five) engineers. However, the affidavit filed by the 5 (five) persons shows that they are Site Engineers. Therefore, the respondent No. 5 could not submit the Laboratory In-Charge and Lab Technician having experience in the field, which is the requirement of the condition of the NIeT. He submits that the aforesaid defects were apparent on the face of the record, and they are essential conditions of the tender. Therefore, the respondent authorities ought to have rejected the bid of the respondent No. 5. 8. He submits that the respondent authorities have restricted the bidder by arbitrarily declaring the petitioner as non-responsive on flimsy grounds, whereas major defects of the respondent No. 5 have been ignored. Therefore, the respondent authorities had adopted different yardsticks for different firms, thereby the defects of the respondent No. 5 were ignored but in the case of the petitioner, even the non-essential conditions were taken on record to declare the petitioner non-responsive, which is a clear violation of the Article 14 of the Constitution of India and as such, he prays that the rejection of Technical Bid Evaluation of the petitioner and the recommendation of the respondent No. 5 for award of the contract may be set aside and quashed. 9. Mr. Sonar, learned counsel, in support of his submissions, has relied upon the following judgments: (i). Banshidhar Construction Private Limited vs. Bharat Coking Coal Limited and Ors. , reported in (2024) 10 SCC 273 (ii). M/s Gokalram Gurjar vs. Jaipur Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. & Ors. , reported in 2019 0 Supreme (SC) 1522 10. Mr. G. Tarak, learned Standing Counsel, RWD for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4, on the other hand, submits that the Technical Bid of the petitioner was rejected on 3 (three) major grounds being violative of Clauses 4.4B (b)(i), 4.4B(ii), as on evaluation of the tender documents, it was found that the petitioner is having major ongoing projects at hand and the list of Tools and Machineries and Technical Personnel furnished by him was not sufficient if new project is awarded. Further in the affidavit of declaration of Tools and Machineries at Serial No.1, the petitioner furnished list of 2(two) numbers of Truck Mounted Water Tanker, same was taken on lease from M/s Yumma Enterprises. These 2(two) numbers of machinery as Truck Mounted Water Tanker in the affidavit of declaration of Tools and Machineries bearing Registration No. AR-01Q-7246 and AR-01Q-7256, but registration of aforesaid machineries is actually identified as a Dumper and Tipper. Therefore, the petitioner did not furnish Truck Mounted Water Tanker, moreover same vehicle was also furnished in one of the packages by the owner of the vehicle, which amounts to duplicity. The petitioner made misleading and false representation in the form of affidavit and attachment by submitting Dumper/Tipper as Truck Mounted Water Tanker as proof of the qualification requirements. Even Clause 4.7(ii) is attracted as the Technical Evaluation Committee has overlooked the ongoing commitment of the petitioner, which reveals that his entire project is already in inordinate delay. Therefore, there was sufficient reason to reject the bid of the petitioner. 11. Mr. Tarak, learned Standing Counsel, RWD, submits that the submission of requisite documents itself is not sufficient to be eligible for qualification. The document should be authentic and genuine and should qualify all conditions of the tender. Taking Dumper/Tipper on lease and showing it as Water Tanker and subsequently, using the same documents in tender process, clearly shows that petitioner has premeditated/prior intention to cheat and mislead the tendering authority. Moreover, the same vehicle was also furnished by the owner in the tender process for the construction of a road from 15 km Rangtewa - Taffo road to Rasong, Package No. AR-03/01/048, which is of the same RWD Division Bameng. Therefore, these acts of the bidder amount to misleading and false information and duplicity, which attracts Clause 4.4B (i) (ii) and 4.7(1) of the SBD. 12. As regards the deficiency/defect of the bid of respondent No. 5, Mr. Tarak, learned Standing Counsel submits that Bank Certificate dated 03.10.2023, issued by the State Bank of India, Dirang Branch, to provide overdraft/credit facilities as relied on by the petitioner was never furnished in the bid documents of the respondent No. 5, rather the Bank Certificate dated 19.07.2024, was furnished for the aforesaid present work. Tarak, learned Standing Counsel submits that Bank Certificate dated 03.10.2023, issued by the State Bank of India, Dirang Branch, to provide overdraft/credit facilities as relied on by the petitioner was never furnished in the bid documents of the respondent No. 5, rather the Bank Certificate dated 19.07.2024, was furnished for the aforesaid present work. Affidavit of undertaking to invest 25% in cash was furnished, although no specific project was mentioned, same was accepted as there is no confusion with regard to the undertaking to invest 25%, which has been furnished with the bid documents. 13. Regarding the Bid Capacity, he submits that it is calculated by Evaluation Committee, based on the Annual Turnover and Bank Certificate and ongoing commitment as per formula given in the Clause 4.6 of the SBD. Therefore, the allegation is misplaced. Regarding Technical Personnel for Laboratory In-Charge and Lab Technician, the persons given were all Diploma and Bachelor of Engineering Degree holder and till date, they were used as Site Engineers. However, they are proposed to be engaged as Lab In-Charge and Lab Assistant. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in accepting the same. Therefore, Mr. Tarak, learned Standing Counsel submits that the allegation of adopting different yardstick for different firms is baseless and the petitioner having conceded to the furnishing of Dumper/Tipper as Water Tanker and the non-discloser of which Machineries and Technical Personnel, the petitioner would be deploying in such a major project and such, wrong furnishing is clearly misleading, which is an essential condition of the tender. Therefore, the Technical Bid of the petitioner has been rightly rejected. 14. Mr. D. Panging, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5, while denying that the respondent No. 5 has furnished the Bank Certificate dated 03.10.2023 in the bid documents, submits that the respondent No. 5 had furnished the Bank Certificate dated 19.07.2024, issued by the State Bank of India, Dirang Branch, to provide overdraft/credit facilities to the extent of Rs. 20.00 Crore to meet working capital requirements for executing the work "L027-Road from Jomoh to Wallong Village, Package No: AR0301074". 15. Mr. 20.00 Crore to meet working capital requirements for executing the work "L027-Road from Jomoh to Wallong Village, Package No: AR0301074". 15. Mr. Panging, learned counsel submits that although the affidavit dated 20.07.2024 affirming or undertaking to invest 25% in cash, does not disclose the name of the work but it can be clearly inferred that the affidavit dated 20.07.2024, affirming or undertaking to invest 25% in cash submitted by the respondent No. 5 was for the work "L027-Road from Jomoh to Wallong Village, Package No: AR0301074", for the fact that the affidavit dated 20.07.2024 affirming or undertaking to invest 25% in cash was submitted by the respondent No. 5, along with the bid documents and also, the fact that the same was sworn before the same Notary Public and drafted by the same Lawyer who had prepared other related documents for the above mentioned work, "L027-Road from Jomoh to Wallong Village”. Be that as it may, not naming the name of the work in the affidavit cannot be a ground for rejection of the bid document when the affidavit dated 20.07.2024, affirming or undertaking to invest 25% in cash was submitted by the respondent No. 5, along with the bid documents for the said work. 16. Mr. Panging, learned counsel submits that Clause 4.6 of the SBD, provides that bidders who meet the minimum qualification criteria will be qualified only if their available Bid Capacity for construction work is equal to or more than the total Bid Value excluding maintenance, which means that the Bid Capacity is to be assessed by the Evaluation Committee based on the documents submitted by bidders exhibiting the maximum value of Civil Engineering works executed in any one year during the last five years taking into account the completed as well as works in progress, number of years prescribed for completion of the works for which bids are invited, and value, at the current price level, of existing commitments and on-going works to be completed during the period of completion of the works for the bids are invited. As such, the statements made by the petitioner that bid of the respondent No. 5 was liable to be rejected because the respondent No. 5 has not uploaded the same is baseless, immaterial and without any presupposition. 17. Mr. As such, the statements made by the petitioner that bid of the respondent No. 5 was liable to be rejected because the respondent No. 5 has not uploaded the same is baseless, immaterial and without any presupposition. 17. Mr. Panging, learned counsel submits that 2 (two) technical personnel, namely, Bhaskar Das and Nabajit Kalita, whose names have been given as Lab In-Charge are Bachelor of Engineering (Civil) Degree holders and 2 (two) Technical Personnel, namely, Biswanath Roy and Rupan Deb, whose names have been given as Lab Technician under the Field Testing Laboratory category are Bachelor of Engineering (Civil) and Diploma (Civil) Degree holders, respectively. He submits that the abovementioned persons have been engaged and working as Site Engineers in other tender works from January 2012 onwards, however, the respondent No. 5 has decided to engage them as Lab In-Charge and Lab Technician for the present tender work. The affidavit, dated 20.07.2024, which the petitioner has referred to, is an affidavit sworn to the effect that the aforementioned persons were working as Site Engineer for the respondent firm since January 2012 till 20.07.2024 and the same cannot mean that the same persons who have been working as Site Engineers cannot be engaged as Laboratory In-Charge or Lab Technician, as has been done for the instant work. It is further stated that Appendix to ITB at Clause 4.4.B(b)(ii) provides that qualification for a person to be engaged as Lab In-Charge and Lab Technician is BE/Diploma in Civil Engineering/B/Sc. In PCM and ITI qualified respectively, and since the 4 (four) Technical Personnel whose names have been given as Lab In- Charge and Lab Technician have requisite qualifications to be engaged as Lab In-Charge and Lab Technician, there is no irregularity committed on the part of the respondent No. 5 by engaging the said 4 (Four) Technical Personnel as Lab In-Charge and Lab Technician for the said tender work. 18. Mr. Panging, learned counsel, has vehemently opposed the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding experience as required for Lab In-charge and Technician and submits that the experience as required is an experience in road works which is clearly provided in the Appendix to Clause 4.4B (b)(ii). He submits that, in any case, it is not the pleaded case of the petitioner. He submits that, in any case, it is not the pleaded case of the petitioner. In this context and in support of his submission, he has relied on the case of Bharat Singh & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Ors. , reported in (1988) 4 SCC 534 , wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that when a point which is ostensibly a point of law is required to be substantiated by facts, the party raising the point, if he is the writ petitioner, must plead and prove such facts by evidence which must appear from the writ petition and if he is the respondent, from the counter-affidavit. If the facts are not pleaded or the evidence in support of such facts is not annexed to the writ petition or to the counter-affidavit, as the case may be, the Court will not entertain the point. 19. Due consideration has been extended to the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 20. The petitioner along with other 3 (three) bidders have participated in the tender process initiated by the Executive Engineer/DPIU, RWD Bameng, vide NIeT, dated 03.07.2024, for construction of “L027 - Road from Jomoh to Wallong Village”, Package No. AR0301074, under the Vibrant Village Programme (VVP). The respondent authority, vide Bid Evaluation Report, dated 02.08.2024, has declared the petitioner along with one M/s Loffa Construction Agency to be non- responsive, which attracts Clause 4.4B(b)(i); 4.4B(b)(ii) & 4.7(i) and the respondent Nos. 5 & 6 have been found to be responsive. Thereafter, vide Financial Bid Evaluation Report dated 19.08.2024, the respondent No. 5, on being found to be L-1, was recommended for award of the aforesaid work and accordingly, the same has been awarded to the respondent No. 5. 21. During the course of hearing, it is stated at the Bar that 80% of the work has already been completed by the respondent No. 5. The petitioner has challenged the rejection of the Technical Bid, vide Bid Evaluation Report dated 02.08.2024 and also, Financial Bid Evaluation Report dated 19.08.2024, by which the respondent No. 5 was recommended being L-1 and consequently, awarded the work on the ground of major defects/deficiency in the bid documents of the respondent No. 5. 22. The petitioner has challenged the rejection of the Technical Bid, vide Bid Evaluation Report dated 02.08.2024 and also, Financial Bid Evaluation Report dated 19.08.2024, by which the respondent No. 5 was recommended being L-1 and consequently, awarded the work on the ground of major defects/deficiency in the bid documents of the respondent No. 5. 22. The relevant Clauses under which the Technical Bid of the petitioner was rejected on being found to be non-responsive and alleged to have been violated and not fulfilled by respondent No. 5, are hereby extracted for ready reference: “4.4 B (b). Each bidder must demonstrate: (i) availability for construction work, either owned, or on lease or on hire, of the key equipment stated in the Appendix to ITB including equipments required for establishing field laboratory to perform mandatory tests, and those stated in the Appendix to ITB; (ii). availability for construction work of technical personnel as stated in the Appendix to ITB. 4.6 Bidders who meet the minimum qualification criteria will be qualified only if their available bid capacity for construction work is equal to or more than the total bid value excluding maintenance. The available bid capacity will be calculated as under: Assessed Available Bid Capacity = (A*N*M - B) Where A = Maximum value of civil engineering works executed in any one year during the last five years (updated to the price level of the last year at the rate of 8 percent a year) taking into account the completed as well as works in progress. N = Number of years prescribed for completion of the works for which bids are invited (period up to 6 months to be taken as 1/2 and more than 6 months as 1 in a year). M = 2 or such higher figure not exceeding 3 as may be specified in the Appendix to ITB. B = Value, at the current price level, of existing commitments and on-going works to be completed during the period of completion of the works for which bids are invited. 4.7. M = 2 or such higher figure not exceeding 3 as may be specified in the Appendix to ITB. B = Value, at the current price level, of existing commitments and on-going works to be completed during the period of completion of the works for which bids are invited. 4.7. Even though the bidders meet the above qualifying criteria, they are subject to be disqualified if they have: (i) made misleading or false representations in the forms, statements, affidavits and attachments submitted in proof of the qualification requirements; and/or (ii) record of poor performance such as abandoning the works, not properly completing the contract, inordinate delays in completion, litigation history, or financial failures etc; and / or (iii) participated in the previous bidding for the same work and had quoted unreasonably high or low bid prices and could not furnish rational justification for it to the Employer.” 23. On perusal of the above Clauses, it reflects that a bidder must demonstrate availability for construction work, either owned, or on lease or on hire, of the key equipment including equipments required for establishing field laboratory to perform mandatory tests and also, availability of construction work of technical personnel as stated in the Appendix to ITB. It also provides that even though bidders meet the minimum qualification criteria, they are subject to be disqualified if they had made misleading or false representations in the forms, statements, affidavits and attachments submitted in form of qualification requirements. It further provides that bidders who meet the minimum qualification criteria will be qualified only if their available bid capacity for construction work is equal to or more than the total bid value excluding maintenance by providing a formula to calculate bid capacity. 24. It is fairly conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has submitted Truck Mounted Water Tanker on hire/lease basis as proof of qualification requirement which turned out to be a Dumper/Tipper. The requirement under Clause 4.4 B(b)(i) is Truck Mounted Water Tanker and not a Dumper/Tipper. Therefore, it is evident that the petitioner has failed to furnish the required equipments of Truck Mounted Water Tanker by submitting the registration number of Dumper/Tipper which may amount to misleading or false representation. And as such, would be a ground for rejection of the Technical Bid. Therefore, it is evident that the petitioner has failed to furnish the required equipments of Truck Mounted Water Tanker by submitting the registration number of Dumper/Tipper which may amount to misleading or false representation. And as such, would be a ground for rejection of the Technical Bid. Although, the learned counsel for the petitioner has made a vain attempt to justify that such furnishing of availability of equipments is not an essential condition of the tender, I am afraid that such submission could be accepted in view of the fact that the requirement is for Truck Mounted Water Tanker, whereas admittedly, the petitioner has furnished the Dumper/Tipper. Thus, in my considered view no further determination is required, as to whether such furnishing of equipment is essential or non-essential. 25. Clause 4.6 provides that bidders who meet the minimum qualification criteria will be qualified only if their available bid capacity for construction work is equal to or more than the total bid value excluding the maintenance and the available Bid Capacity is to be calculated as A*N*M-B. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 has not clearly provided by showing his Bid Capacity as has been done by the petitioner to which, on consideration of the materials available on record, this Court finds that the respondent No. 5 has submitted all the relevant documents with regard to the Bid Capacity with the Bid Value and therefore, it is the respondent authorities to calculate the Bid Capacity of the bidder by following the formula as prescribed under Clause 4.6, which in the present case has been done by the respondent authorities by calculating the Bid Capacity of the respondent No. 5. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner falls flat. 26. Regard being had to the defects/deficiencies of the respondent No. 5, it is noticed that the respondent No. 5 has denied furnishing of the Bank Certificate, dated 03.10.2023 in the bid documents, which was issued by the State Bank of India, Dirang Branch, to provide overdraft/credit facilities for Rs. 5,00,000,00/- (Rupees Five Crore only) to the respondent No. 5 for the work C/o Road from Dirang to Zimthung. 5,00,000,00/- (Rupees Five Crore only) to the respondent No. 5 for the work C/o Road from Dirang to Zimthung. In fact, the respondent No. 5 had furnished the Bank Certificate, dated 19.07.2024, issued by the State Bank of India, Dirang Branch, to provide overdraft/credit facilities to the extent of Rs.20.00 Crore to meet working capital requirements for executing the work "L027-Road from Jomoh to Wallong Village, Package: AR0301074. 27. Although the affidavit, dated 20.07.2024 affirming or undertaking to invest 25% in cash, does not disclose the name of the work but it can be clearly inferred that the affidavit, dated 20.07.2024, affirming or undertaking to invest 25% in cash submitted by the respondent No. 5 was for the work "L027-Road from Jomoh to Wallong Village, Package: AR0301074", for the simple reason that the affidavit dated 20.07.2024, affirming to invest 25% in cash was submitted by the respondent No. 5, along with the bid documents. Mere non- mentioning of name of the work in the affidavit cannot be a ground for rejection of the bid document when the affidavit affirming to invest 25% in cash was submitted by the respondent No. 5 along with the bid documents. 28. The requirement that the bidders who meet the minimum qualification criteria will be qualified only if their available bid capacity for construction work is equal to or more than the total Bid Value excluding maintenance, would mean that the Bid Capacity is to be assessed by the Evaluation Committee based on the documents submitted by bidders exhibiting the maximum value of Civil Engineering works executed in any one year during the last five years taking into account the completed as well as works in progress, number of years prescribed for completion of the works for which bids are invited, and value, at the current price level, of existing commitments and on-going works to be completed during the period of completion of the works for the bids are invited. 29. It is noticed that 2 (two) Technical Personnel, namely, Bhaskar Das and Nabajit Kalita, whose names have been given as Lab In-Charge are Bachelor of Engineering (Civil) degree holders and 2 (two) technical personnel, namely, Biswanath Roy and Rupan Deb, whose names have been given as Lab Technician under the Field Testing Laboratory Category are Bachelor of Engineering (Civil) and Diploma (Civil) Degree holders, respectively. These persons have been engaged and working as Site Engineers in other tender works from January 2012 onwards, however, the respondent No. 5 has decided to engage them as Lab In-Charge and Lab Technician for the aforementioned tender work. The affidavit, dated 20.07.2024, which the petitioner has referred to, is an affidavit sworn to the effect that the aforementioned persons were working as Site Engineer for the respondent firm since January 2012 till 20.07.2024 and the same cannot mean that the same persons who have been working as Site Engineers cannot be engaged as Laboratory In-Charge or Lab Technician. Appendix to ITB at Clause 4.4.B(b)(ii) provides that qualification for a person to be engaged as Lab In-Charge and Lab Technician is BE/Diploma in Civil Engineering/B.Sc. Since the 4 (four) Technical Personnel, whose names have been given as Lab In-Charge and Lab Technician have requisite qualifications to be engaged as Lab In-Charge and Lab Technician, this Court finds no irregularity not to talk of illegality. More so, requirement is experience in road works. 30. In the matter of tender, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that a bidder whose Technical Bid having being rejected, and there being no specific prayer challenging as to rejection of his own Technical Bid, the writ petitioner has no Locus Standi to challenge selection of successful bidder. Requisites of valid tender is that it must conform to the terms of obligation, it must be in the proper form and the person by whom the tender is made must be able and willing to perform his obligations. Writ not maintainable by a firm whose bid is not in conformity with NIT and also not in proper form and whose bid validity has expired. Judicial Review in tender matter, the basic test is to see whether there is any infirmity in the decision-making process and not in the decision itself. Where two views are possible and view has been taken, in such case, in absence of mala fide, taking one view cannot be ground of judicial review. By way of Judicial Review, the Court is not expected to act as a Court of appeal, while examining administration decision. The author is the best person to interpret. For interference, there should be overwhelming public interest. Mere disagreement with the decision-making process or the decision of the administrative authority is no reason for a Court to interfere. By way of Judicial Review, the Court is not expected to act as a Court of appeal, while examining administration decision. The author is the best person to interpret. For interference, there should be overwhelming public interest. Mere disagreement with the decision-making process or the decision of the administrative authority is no reason for a Court to interfere. Court deciding which condition of NIT is essential and non-essential would amount to re-write the arrangement which would not be permissible. Attempt by unsuccessful bidder with imaginary grievance, pride, should be resisted. Court only to whether process adopted or decision made by the authority is mala fide or intended to favour someone or whether public interest is affected. If the answers are in the negative, there should be no interference under Article 226. Writ Court cannot make a roving enquiry to find fault with the decision-making process so as to return another finding than that of the finding arrived at by the tender committee. It has also observed to the extent that even if there is total arbitrariness, Court should refrain from interfering, instead should relegate parties to seek damages. 31. The case of Banshidhar Construction Private Limited (Supra), relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner is well settled proposition of law by the Hon’ble Supreme Court which requires no consideration by this Court as held, that there cannot be any disagreement to the legal proposition propounded in a catena of decisions relied upon by the learned counsel to the effect that the Court does not sit as a Court of appeal in the matter of award of contracts and it merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made; and that the Government and its instrumentalities must have a freedom of entering into the contracts. However, it is equally well-settled that the decision of the Government/its instrumentalities must be free from arbitrariness and must not be affected by any bias or actuated by mala fides. In the present case there is no allegations of bias or mala fide except bald plea of arbitrariness. Thus, same does not come to the aid of petitioner in any manner. The case of M/s Gokalram Gurjar (Supra), has no relevancy too, therefore, it is not even required to be perused at all. 32. In the present case there is no allegations of bias or mala fide except bald plea of arbitrariness. Thus, same does not come to the aid of petitioner in any manner. The case of M/s Gokalram Gurjar (Supra), has no relevancy too, therefore, it is not even required to be perused at all. 32. Reverting back to present case, as noted hereinabove, the petitioner has not fulfilled the terms and conditions as provided under the relevant Clauses, inasmuch as, the Clause 4.4B (b)(i) which requires the bidder to provide Truck Mounted Water Tanker and not a Dumper/Tipper. Therefore, it is evident that the petitioner has failed to furnish the required equipments of Truck Mounted Water Tanker by submitting the registration number of Dumper/Tipper which may amount to misleading or false representation and as such, would be a ground for rejection of the Technical Bid. Requisites of valid tender is that it must conform to the terms of obligation and must be in the proper form. Thus, the rejection of the technical bid of the petitioner cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal. 33. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove and the reasons thereof, I am of the considered view that no ground is made out for interference with the rejection of the Technical Bid of the petitioner vide Technical Bid Evaluation Report, dated 02.08.2024 and the Financial Bid Evaluation Report, dated 19.08.2024 of the tender process vide NIeT dated 03.07.2024 issued by the Executive Engineer-DPIU, Rural Works Department, Bameng Division, for construction of “L027-Road from Jomoh to Wallong Village”. 34. Consequently, writ petition stands dismissed being devoid of merit. Cost(s) made easy. JUDGE Comparing Assistant