I.A. Ansari, J.

1. Whether Value Added Tax (in short, 'VAT') is different in nature from sales tax and whether the requirement of furnishing of Sales Tax Clearance Certificate in a tender process would, since after enactment of the Value Added Tax Act, mean VAT Clearance Certificate or not? Whether Sales Tax Clearance Certificate is, by its very nature, different from VAT Clearance Certificate? Whether the requirement of submission of VAT Clearance Certificate on supply of woolen blankets can be said to be fulfilled on the submission of VAT Registration Certificate granted under a scheme of composition of the fiscal statute in respect of a works contract? What is the scope of interference in a writ appeal with an order passed in the writ petition dismissing the appeal where a new plea is wholly barred from being raised in a writ appeal if the plea was not taken in the writ petition? What is the scope of judicial review in contractual matters? These are the prominent questions, which have to be answered in this appeal.

2. The material facts, leading to this appeal, may, in brief, be set out as follows:

Pursuant to a tender notice, dated 30-09-2009, issued by Respondent No. 2, namely, Inspector General of Prisons, Assam, inviting tenders with samples from intending suppliers/recognized manufacturers/dealers or their agents for supply of woolen blankets/materials for warden's uniform for the jails of Assam, the writ Petitioner (who is Respondent No. 1 herein), the Appellant (who was Respondent No. 4 in the writ petition) and some others submitted their respective tenders for supply of woolen blankets. On 20-10-2009, when the tenders were opened, the lowest bidder's tender was found to be non-responsive inasmuch as he had not submitted separate tenders for different types of supply materials mentioned in the said tender notice. The writ Petitioner-Respondent No. 1's bid was found to be the second lowest and the Appellant was found to be the third lowest bidder. As the lowest bidder's tender was found to be non-responsive, the Respondent No. 1, who claimed to be the second lowest bidder, filed a writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which gave rise to WP(C) No. 4858 of 2009, seeking issuance of appropriate writ(s) commanding the State Respondents/authorities concerned to allot the work, in question, to the writ Petitioner (i.e., Respondent No. 1 herein). This writ application was, however, withdrawn, on 16-11-2009, with liberty to approach this Court, in future, if any decision was taken by the authority concerned against the writ Petitioner-Respondent No. 1 herein.

3. As the State Respondents decided to allot the work of supply of woolen blankets to the present Appellant, Respondent No. 1 filed another writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which gave rise to WP(C) No. 5862 of 2009, the case of the Respondent No. 1 being, in brief, thus: The writ Petitioner (i.e., Respondent No. 1) came to learn that on 17-11-2009, a meeting had been held for taking a decision in the matter of allotment of supply work of woolen blankets and, on request made by the Respondent No. 1, Respondent No. 3 provided the Respondent No. 1 with a copy of the minutes of the meeting, which, on being examined by the Respondent No. 1, revealed that a decision had been taken, in the meeting held on 17-11-2009, to award the contract for supply of woolen blankets to the Appellant @ Rs.235/- per woolen blanket. The Respondent No. 1 accordingly filed the second writ petition seeking to get set aside and quashed the decision, which had been taken by the State Respondents/authorities concerned to allot the contract to the Appellant and, further, for a direction to be issued to the State Respondents/authorities concerned to allot the contract, in question, to the Respondent No. 1.

4. In the meanwhile, however, Respondent No. 3, namely, Inspector General of Prisons, Assam, informed the Appellant, by the communication, da