JUDEMGNT : KARDAK ETE , J. Heard Mr. A.R. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Nath, learned Senior Govt. Advocate for all the respondents. 2. By filing this writ petition, the writ petitioner has put to challenge the tender summary report dated 07.01.2025, by which, the technical bid of the petitioner has been rejected on having found to be non-responsive, pertaining to the Notice Inviting e-Tender (herein after referred to as NIeT in short) dated 25.11.2024 issued by the Inspector General of Prisons, Assam inviting bids for supply of Dietary items i.e. Group A,B,C and D, required for the jails of the State of Assam covered under Zone-4. 3. Having considered the issue raised in the present proceedings, although one Tharad Trading Company represented by its Proprietor- Shri Amit Kumar Tharad, Barpeta Road, District Barpeta, Assam, is arrayed as respondent No.3 and no notice has been issued to him, the present petition is being taken up for final disposal as the matter relates to supply of dietary items for the jails of the State of Assam, as no prejudice would cause to the respondent No. 3. 4. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is that he is the proprietor of M/s Brahmaputra Goat Supply, a firm registered in the year 2021 and has been running the business of selling the dietary articles including fish, meat and eggs. The Inspector General of Prisons, Assam, issued NIeT vide dated 25.11.2024 in two bids system inviting bids from the interested Suppliers/ Dealers/Firms for supply of Dietary items i.e. Group-A, B, C, D required for the Jails of Assam covered under Zone-4 for the financial year 2024-25. The petitioner being the eligible and qualified Supplier, in response to the aforesaid NIeT submitted his technical bid and price bid along with all the requisite documents through online mode in the name of his firm, i.e. M/s Brahmaputra Goat Supply, the acknowledgment notice of which was issued to the petitioner showing its successful submission of bids. Thereafter, on 09.02.2024, the petitioner submitted hard copies along with all original documents before the Office of the Inspector General of Prisons, Assam. 5. Thereafter, on 09.02.2024, the petitioner submitted hard copies along with all original documents before the Office of the Inspector General of Prisons, Assam. 5. The petitioner contends that while awaiting for selection in the said NIeT having been successfully submitted his bid along with required documents, he checked up the status of the bidding, on which it is found that the respondent authorities have uploaded the tender summary report on 07.01.2025 showing participation of four bidders including the petitioner. By the impugned summary report dated 07.01.2025, surprisingly, the bid of the petitioner is shown to be rejected on the ground of technical bid not qualified whereas, the bid of the respondent no.3 is found technically qualified. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed representation dated 16.01.2025 before the Inspector General of Prisons, Assam, and made a request to reconsider the technical bid of the petitioner. However, the same has not been considered, despite several approaches. 6. Mr. A.R. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has submitted all the requisite documents as per the ITB, particularly para 2.11.1, and after successful submission, the acknowledgment receipt was also issued in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner successfully submitted his bid and the same was received by the authorities. However, without assigning any valid reasons, the respondent authorities have rejected the technical bid of the petitioner and as such rejection is arbitrary and unreasonable and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 7. Mr. A.R. Bhuyan, learned counsel, submits that pursuant to the aforesaid NIeT, especially for Group-D articles, the four numbers of bidders including the petitioner's firm have submitted their bids. The name of the firm of the petitioner was placed at serial No. 1, whereas, the respondent No. 3 was placed at serial No.4. He submits that in case of any deficiency, which is ancillary in nature, the respondent authority ought to have communicated to the petitioner to rectify such ancillary defects by providing an opportunity of hearing. Therefore, Mr. Bhuyan, learned counsel, submits that the respondent authorities may be directed to re-consider the technical bid of the petitioner by setting aside the impugned summary report dated 07.01.2025, as no reason has been mentioned for rejection of technical bid of the petitioner. 8. Mr. Therefore, Mr. Bhuyan, learned counsel, submits that the respondent authorities may be directed to re-consider the technical bid of the petitioner by setting aside the impugned summary report dated 07.01.2025, as no reason has been mentioned for rejection of technical bid of the petitioner. 8. Mr. Bhuyan, learned counsel, in support of his submissions, has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Brahmaputra Consortium Ltd. and Another Vs. State of Assam and Ors. reported in 2007(4) GLT 236. 9. On the other hand, Mr. D. Nath, learned Senior Government Advocate, submits that the tender summary report dated 07.01.2025 contains the bid of the bidders who have taken part in the tender process by submitting their bid documents. After evaluation of the technical bid of all the bidders, the outcome of the same has been published vide the tender summary report dated 07.01.2025. Although, the petitioner is placed at serial no. 1 of the system generated tender summary report, the serial number of the bidders in the tender summary report is not on the basis of their financial bid in as much as the tender summary report indicates the result of the technical bid evaluation and the financial bid has not been opened yet. Therefore, the question of highest or lowest bidder does not arise at this stage as the financial bid is not yet opened. 10. He submits that although the petitioner claimed to have submitted all the requisite documents through online as well as offline mode, but on inspection of the documents both online and hard copies, the petitioner did not submit mandatory and essential technical documents that were required to qualify in the technical stage as per terms and conditions of the Bid document of the NIeT. Therefore, the technical bid of the petitioner has been rejected having been found to be non-responsive, as the petitioner has failed to submits the financial soundness certificate as per Clause-44, IT returns of the last three assessment years as per clause-9 and GST certificate with up to date GST return as per Clause-16 as per terms and conditions. Therefore, he submits that the tender committee did not receive the aforesaid documents as claimed by the petitioner neither in soft copy nor hard copy. Therefore, he submits that the tender committee did not receive the aforesaid documents as claimed by the petitioner neither in soft copy nor hard copy. The allegation that his documents may have been destroyed is not based on facts and is only an afterthought of the petitioner to cover up his own mistake and is a mere conjecture to malign the integrity of the bidding process and undue interference in the whole bidding process. 11. Mr. Nath, learned Senior Govt. Advocate, while referring to the affidavit-in- reply filed by the petitioner, submits that same clearly indicates that the petitioner has not submitted the above said documents, as the petitioner has stated that the requisite documents through online as well as offline mode have been submitted but due to technical failure, some documents which are not mandatory are left out while uploading in the database and if error has taken place, there shall be a provision for correcting the defect within a time frame and the same shall be done before opening the financial bid. Therefore, there is no merit in the writ petition and as such the same is liable to be dismissed. 12. Mr. D. Nath, learned Senior Govt. Advocate has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Girin Deka and Ors. Vs. State of Assam and Ors. reported in 2014 (2) GLT 795, to project that since the petitioner did not comply with the mandatory requirements of the tender conditions, the Tender Evaluation Committee was within its jurisdiction and competence to reject the tender submitted by the petitioner. 13. Due consideration has been extended to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials available on record. 14. The petitioner submitted his bid in the name of his firm, M/s Brahmaputra Goat Supply, through online and offline mode, which was duly acknowledged. There were altogether four bidders including the petitioner, who have submitted their bids pursuant to the NIeT dated 25.11.2024 for supply of dietary items for Group-A, B, C, D, particularly Group-D. 15. The bid of the petitioner has been found to be non-responsive on the ground of non-submission of requisite documents vide impugned tender summary report dated 07.01.2025. There were altogether four bidders including the petitioner, who have submitted their bids pursuant to the NIeT dated 25.11.2024 for supply of dietary items for Group-A, B, C, D, particularly Group-D. 15. The bid of the petitioner has been found to be non-responsive on the ground of non-submission of requisite documents vide impugned tender summary report dated 07.01.2025. Although, the petitioner specifically has not pleaded in the present writ petition, whether, the documents required to be submitted as per the NIeT, on which the technical bid of the petitioner has been rejected, is ancillary or essential requirement, Mr. A.R. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner at the time of hearing, while not admitting that those documents were not submitted, has submitted that such documents are only ancillary or subsidiary and not an essential requirement of the NIeT, to which this Court would consider the submission in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 16. To appreciate, it is apposite to refer and consider the terms of the NIeT. The authorities vide additional terms and conditions in the NIeT dated 25.11.2024 stipulates that all the terms and conditions for supply, testing and acceptance of the payment terms, penalty clause etc., shall be as those mentioned herein and no change whatsoever in terms and conditions shall be acceptable. 17. Clause-4 of the terms and conditions provides that the tenderer should have submitted their minimum Average Annual Turnover for the last three years by showing the minimum Average Turnover of the bidders for last three years. Clause-9 provides that the tenderer should have submitted copy of the Income Tax Return Certificate for last three Assessment years. Clause-16 provides that the tenderer should submit up to date GST return along with GST certificates failing which the tender will be rejected. Clause-44 provides that the tenderer should have submitted financial soundness certificate from any Bank issued after floating of the NIeT along with Bid failing which the bid will be rejected. 18. Bare perusal of the additional terms and conditions of the NIeT, shows that the above requirements appear to be mandatory and essential conditions of NIeT. Clause-44 provides that the tenderer should have submitted financial soundness certificate from any Bank issued after floating of the NIeT along with Bid failing which the bid will be rejected. 18. Bare perusal of the additional terms and conditions of the NIeT, shows that the above requirements appear to be mandatory and essential conditions of NIeT. The records reveals that the petitioner has failed to submit the financial soundness certificate as per Clause-44, Income Tax Return of the last three assessment years as per Clause-9 and GST certificate with up to date GST return as per Clause-16 of the additional terms and conditions of the tender. Therefore, the vain attempt of Mr. A.R. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner to project that the even if the above documents are not submitted, same are ancillary is not acceptable, as the same appears to be an essential qualification criterion and condition of the NIeT. 19. In Poddar Steel Corporation Vs. Ganesh Engineering Works and Ors, reported in (1991) 3 SCC 273 , the Hon’ble supreme Court has held that in the tender process, there could be two categories of qualification criteria, i.e., essential qualification criterion and the other, ancillary or subsidiary requirement. In so far as essential qualification criterion is concerned, it needs to be rigidly and strictly enforced and non-fulfillment of the essential qualification criteria should lead to disqualification of a tenderer. However, insistence on fulfillment with regard to ancillary or subsidiary requirement may not be justified. 20. In Jain Video on Wheels Ltd. (Dr.) vs. Union of India , reported in 2013 (5) GLT, this Court, dealing with the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in the matter of tender evaluation by the expert technical body and after consideration of the decisions of the Hon’ble supreme court, held that any relaxation of the eligibility conditions of the tender will amount to denial of opportunity to those, who considered themselves ineligible and therefore did not participate in the tender process. It has further been held that the terms of tender, prescribing the eligibility criteria, are open to interference only if they are arbitrary, discriminatory or bias, but not open to interference merely because the Court feels that some other terms would have been more preferable. 21. It has further been held that the terms of tender, prescribing the eligibility criteria, are open to interference only if they are arbitrary, discriminatory or bias, but not open to interference merely because the Court feels that some other terms would have been more preferable. 21. Regard being had to the submissions that the respondent authorities ought to have provided an opportunity to the petitioner to rectify any deficiency in the bid to the petitioner is also not supported by any terms and conditions of the NIeT, as there is no provisions in the NIeT which empowers the respondent authorities, to resort to such course of action and if such contention is accepted, in my view the whole purpose of tender would be defeated as it is settled principle of law that in tender matter principle of equity and natural justice stay at a distance. If the decision relating to award of contract is bonafide and is in public interest, courts will not, in exercise of power of judicial review, interfere even if a procedural aberration or error in the assessment or prejudice to a tenderer, is made out. 22. The case of Brahmaputra Consortium Ltd. (Supra) , relied by learned counsel, Mr. Bhuyan, pertains to deficiencies with regard to key personnel and site engineer, balance sheets and bank guarantee in the context of availability of other graduate Engineers with requisite experience, who could have been deployed as Site Engineer to meet the requirement, balance sheets for other 3 years not audited despite submission of 2 years audited balance sheets and an additional requirement to indicate the financial competency of the bidding company to execute the contract, but financial competency of the bidder is to be assessed not only on the basis of the Bank certificate, but also on the basis of evaluation of the balance sheets of the company for the previous five years. The court, on the facts of that case, held that such deficiencies curable. In the present case, I find that the petitioner has failed to submit the essential documents as per the terms of the NIeT, therefore, the case is clearly distinguishable and as such the decision in the above case does not come to the aid of the petitioner. 23. In the present case, I find that the petitioner has failed to submit the essential documents as per the terms of the NIeT, therefore, the case is clearly distinguishable and as such the decision in the above case does not come to the aid of the petitioner. 23. On consideration of the materials as noted above, although, the petitioner has submitted that he has submitted all the required documents, same is not supported by record. Thus, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has failed to submit the required documents, which are essential qualification criteria of the NIeT. As noticed above, since the petitioner did not comply with the mandatory requirements of the tender conditions, the Tender Evaluation Committee was within its jurisdiction and competence to reject the tender submitted by the petitioner. Except for bald submission of arbitrariness, the petitioner miserably failed to show that the impugned rejection is arbitrary, discriminatory or malafide and/or infringes Article 14 of the constitution. Therefore, there is no substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 24. For the foregoing discussions and reasons, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner has failed to make out any case for interference with the impugned tender summary report dated 07.01.2025, as the petitioner has failed to submit the documents which are essential qualification and conditions of the NIeT as per the Clauses-4, 9, 16 and 44. Thus, I find no merit in the present writ petition. 25. In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed being devoid of merit. No order as to costs.