WA 294/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE A. K. GOEL THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANIMA HAZARIKA (Goel,J.) This appeal has been preferred against order of the learned Single Judge quashin g the award of contract in favour of the appellant after following the tender pr ocess. The respondent, whose bid was lower than the appellant, raised objection to the award of contract on the ground that the appellant had not submitted Bakijai cle arance certificate from the district authorities and thus bid given by the appel lant was defective. Learned Single Judge upheld this objection and set aside the offer of settlement dated 17.08.2010 in favour of the appellant. The matter was remitted to the Ass am Fisheries Development Corporation for taking a fresh decision in the matter o f settlement of the fishery in question. We have heard Mr. A. M. Buzarbaruah, learned counsel for the appellant, and Mr. S. Banik, learned counsel for respondent No.3 - original writ petitioner. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the defect in not submitting Baki jai clearance certificate is a curable defect. If a public authority allowed the defect to be cured, no prejudice was caused to the writ petitioner or to the pu blic revenue. In such circumstances interference by this Court was not called fo r. Reliance has been placed on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Poddar St eel Corporation vs. Ganesh Engineering Works & Ors, (1991)3 SCC 273, laying down that in the tender process there could be two categories of qualification crite ria. Essential qualification criteria needs to be rigidly enforced, but ancillar y or subsidiary requirement need not be rigidly followed. Reliance has also been placed on AIR India Ltd. vs. Cochin International Airport Ltd. & Ors, (2000) 2 SCC 617, to submit that Courts should not interfere in mat ters of contract on a pure technicality unless public interest requires such an intervention. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has submitted that the requirement of su bmitting Bakijai clearance certificate was required to be rigidly followed as ri ghtly held by learned Single Judge. After considering the rival contentions we are of the view that the requirement of submitting Bakijai clearance certificate could not be taken as a rigid requir ement. It is not a case where level playing field has been denied nor a case whe re loss has been caused to public revenue. In exercise of jurisdiction under Art icle 226 of the Constitution of India this Court does not sit in appeal over the decision of an administrator in giving a contract unless there is illegality, i rrationality or procedural irregularity as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Cour t in Tata Cellular vs. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 11. If after taking into a ccount all relevant considerations a decision has been taken to award contract, the Court has to be slow in interfering with the decision. In the present case, there was no compelling need for interference in absence of any illegality, mala fides or loss of public revenue. For the above reasons, we are of the view that the order passed by the learned S ingle Judge cannot be sustained. This appeal is allowed and the writ petition fi led by the respondent is dismissed.