JUDGMENT :

Prakash Shrivastava, J.

1. This intra-court appeal is at the instance of the respondents in the writ petition, challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dated 29th of August, 2022 allowing W.P.A. No. 18494 of 2022 which was filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein (writ petitioners).

2. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 had filed the writ petition with the plea that they were earlier awarded the contract for the management of the Health Care Services at Plant Hospital of the appellant No. 1 located at Salboni. On the expiry of the term, the appellant No. 1 had published the fresh tender notice inviting bids from interested persons on 26th of April, 2022. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (writ petitioners) had participated and submitted their bid in the prescribed form. According to the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, bid was opened on 27th of May, 2022, thereafter on or about 1st of August, 2022 they were refunded the security amount and they came to know that their technical bid was rejected. On the inquiry the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were informed that the communication was sent through e-mail on June 16, 2022 requiring some further documents from them. According to the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, the said communication entirely slipped their attention. Further case of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 was that vide letter dated 3rd of August, 2022 they had requested for a day’s time to arrange for and submit documents and all such documents were submitted on 3rd of August, 2022. In this factual background, the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (writ petitioners) had challenged the rejection of the technical bid and further prayed for a direction to consider the petitioners’ financial bid.

3. Learned Single Judge by the impugned order has allowed the writ petition by holding that the appellants did not adhere to the mode of service stipulated in the tender document and in this regard learned Single Judge has relied upon clause 27 of the bid document.

4. Submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were given opportunity in terms of the clause 19 which is attracted in the matter, therefore, learned Single Judge has wrongly relied upon clause 27. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that since it was a pre-qualification stage, therefore, clause 19 will be attracted. He further submits that due opportunity to file the document was given to the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 which they had not availed within time and it is not a case of minor infirmity. It is also submitted that the writ petition has been allowed by the learned Single Judge on the first date of hearing itself without giving opportunity to the appellants to file affidavit in opposition and that writ petition has not been filed by the bidder.

5. Per contra, submission of the learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (writ petitioners) is that it is a case where clause 27 is attracted which is relating to minor defects and that physical notice as required by clause 27 was not served. He has further submitted that the requisite documents were submitted on 3rd of August, 2022, but they were refused.

6. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. It is settled position of law that scope of interference in contractual matters is limited and this Court does not sit as a Court of appeal against the decision of the authorities in such matters. In the matter of Silppi Constructions Contractors vs. Union of India and Another reported in (2020) 16 SCC 489 has held that:

“19. This Court being the guardian of fundamental rights is duty-bound to interfere when there is arbitrariness, irrationality, mala fides and bias. However, this Court in all the aforesaid decisions has cautioned time and again that courts should exercise a lot of restraint while exercising their powers of judicial review in contractual or commercial matters. This Court is normally loathe to interfere in contractual matters unless a clear-cut case of arbitrariness o