( 1 ) IN the present matter arguments were heard on 14. 7. 2005 and the judgment was reserved. Thereafter the counsel for the respondents mentioned the matter and sought liberty to file an additional affidavit. With the consent of the parties and for the reasons recorded in the order-dated 19. 7. 2005, further arguments were heard on 22. 7. 2005.

( 2 ) INDIAN Railway Catering and Tourism corporation Limited, the respondent No. 2, by way of publications made in the months of March and April 2005, invited tenders from caterers in respect of some trains mentioned therein.

( 3 ) M/s. P. K. Delicacies Pvt. Ltd, the petitioner No. 1, submitted tenders for 15 trains as per the details given below:

( 4 ) THE tender documents consist of two bids; the technical bid and the financial bid. The technical bids and the financial bids were required to be submitted in two separate sealed envelopes. Initially technical bids were required to be opened and on the tender Committee being satisfied that the bidder meets the eligibility criteria and has complied with the terms and conditions, financial bid of the said party is opened. In the present case, technical bids of the petitioner have been opened and the tenders submitted by the petitioner no. 1 have been rejected. This has prompted the petitioner no. 1 to file the present Writ petition.

( 5 ) THE petitioner claims that the respondent no. 2 has wrongly rejected its tenders after opening of the technical bids on the ground, inter alia, that petitioner no. 1 does not meet the eligibility criteria of at least 5 years past experience. Some allegations of mala-fides have also been made in paragraph 14 of the Writ Petition. However, on 12. 7. 2005, the counsel for the petitioner stated that the allegations made against R. K. Group are subject matter of another writ petition and these allegations will not be pressed in this Petition.

( 6 ) RESPONDENT Nos. 1 and 2 in their affidavit-dated 14. 7. 2005 have stated that the technical bids in respect of trains were opened and examined by the tender Evaluation Committee. As per the report of the said Committee the tenders of the petitioner were rejected on two counts; firstly, the petitioner no. 1 did not have relevant experience and secondly, the tenders were incomplete as Annexure B of the tender documents was not filled up and signed. Along with this affidavit dated 14. 7. 2005, the said respondents have enclosed minutes of the Tender Evaluation Committee in respect of nine trains bearing Nos. 2433/34, 2031/32, 2017/18, 2005/06, 2015/16, 2431/32, 2011/12, 2007/08 and 2957/58.

( 7 ) IN the affidavit dated 19. 7. 2005 filed by the respondents it has been stated that the Tender evaluation Committee has rejected the tenders in respect of five other trains, namely train Nos. 6687/88, 2311/12, 2715/16, 2801/02 and 2471/72, for an additional reason also, i. e. for failure to furnish and file Annexure F with the technical bid documents. It is further stated that the tender in respect of train no. 2707/08 has been discharged.

( 8 ) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties and also examined the pleadings and the documents produced before us.

( 9 ) THE scope of judicial review in tender cases has come up for consideration before the Supreme Court and various High Courts on several occasions. Courts have ordinarily shown great restrain in interfering with contractual matters, but at the same time when it appears that a functionary or instrumentality of a State is acting irrationally, or in an improper manner or the conduct lacks fairness, Courts have intervened. Judicial quest in administrative matters has been to find the right balance between the administrative discretion and need to remedy any unfairness.

( 10 ) THE Supreme Court after exhaustive consideration of earlier judgments in the case of Tata cellular vs. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651 has adduced the following principles that have to be kept in mind while adjudicating upon actio