Challa Kodanda Ram, J.

1. This Writ Petition is filed questioning the rejection of Techno-Commercial bid of the petitioner against Tender No. 06-CAOC-SC-2017-ITEM 1, by Respondents 2 and 3 Chief Administrative Officer, Construction, South Central Railway and Convenor/Tender Committee, Construction Department, South Central Railway, Secunderabad, communicated through e-mail. The brief facts of the case, as can be seen from the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, are that, the petitioner is a joint venture of M/s. KRANS Projects Private Limited, a private limited company represented by its Managing Director Sri K. Ranga Rao and an independent contractor Sri T.V. Sambasiva Rao, S/o Sri T. Suryanarayna, formed specifically for making an offer with respect to the work in tender notice No. 06-CAO-C-SC-2017-ITEM1 (hereinafter referred to as 'contract work'), dated 28.03.2017. In response to the tender notice issued for execution of the work i.e. "Doubling of track between Guntur-Guntakal Section - Earthwork in formation including blanketing to GE.0014 specifications, construction of minor bridges, RUBs for LCs and other miscellaneous work including clearing the S&T obstructions from KM 5.00 to 60.00 between Nallapadu (including) and Santamagaluru (excluding) stations -Reach.I", the petitioner submitted its offer. In terms thereof, the petitioner is required to submit its offer on-line, by fulfilling various conditions notified therein. The offer can be made by the eligible contractors, including joint venture entities. However, the offer of the petitioner was not considered on the ground that it had failed to submit a specific document in compliance with Clause 3.2 of the Commercial Compliance of the tender document, which clearly stipulates the documents to be submitted by a JV tenderer in terms of Clause 65.15.

2. Learned Senior Counsel Sri R. Raghunandan appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the document specified under Clause 65.15 is an inconsequential one and non-submission of such a document, at best, would result in non-compliance with a nonessential condition. The learned Senior Counsel, pointing out that the document mentioned in Clause 65.15 is only an affidavit, which is required to be given on a stamp paper by the constituent member of the joint venture, would submit that non-submission of such an affidavit cannot be taken as a ground for rejection of the offer of the petitioner to participate in the tender process. The learned Senior Counsel, placing reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in G.J. Fernandez v. State of Karnataka (1990) 2 SCC 488, Poddar Steel Corporation v. Ganesh Engineering Works (1991) 3 SCC 273, Cyano Pharma (P) Limited v. The State of Telangana 2016 (2) ALT 282, and Rashmi Metaliks Limited v. Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority (2013) 10 SCC 95 : 2014 (1) ALT 39.2 (DN SC), would contend that the condition of the nature, non-compliance of which is complained of, is not an essential one and in those circumstances and in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, the action of the respondents in rejecting the offer of the petitioner is unsustainable. He, therefore, prays for a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the financial bid of the petitioner.

3. Resisting the prayer of the petitioner, Sri C.V. Rajiv Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Railways, placing reliance on the judgments of this Court in Union of India, South Central Railway, Secunderabad v. Ms Laxmi Builders 2003 (3) ALT 1, and Smt. Radha Konduri v. State of A.P. 2017 (3) ALT 345 and that of the Supreme Court in State of Jharkhand v. CWE-SOMA Consortium 2016 (6) ALD 185 (SC), contends that noncompliance of the notified conditions in the tender document is a good reason for rejecting the offer of the petitioner and in the absence of any allegation of mala fides or favouritism, the technical committee's opinion cannot be substituted by that of the Court and there being n