tf' y' ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (CHHATISGARH) Petitioners W. P. No. of2004 Sushil Kumar Agrawal S/0 Shri. K.L. Agrawal Aged 38 Y^rs Railway Contractor Tikarapara, Bilaspur (Chhatisgarh) Versus ResBondents ,^-y '<s<^ y \ ...^w, '^^f^^ .^^ "w .^•-^ ^.••>v<^ ^•^^ ^^y' - ^ ',(^^€^ \^ \^^-^aJ" ^.^•^ .s<f- \ii'/ ^' Union of India Through: Secretary Indian Railways New Delhi General Manager South East Central Railway Bilaspur (Chhatisgarh). Divisional Railway Manager (Engineering) South East Central Railway Bilaspur Senior Divisional Engineer (Co-ord) South East Central Railway Bilaspur M/s Singh Transporters Railway and Government Contractor 78, Shanti Nagar Ameri Road Bilaspur - 495 001 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT/WRITS IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS. CERTIORARI ETC., DIRECTION/DIRECTIONS. QRDER/QRDERS AND SUCH QTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT \--> HIGH COURT <»•JODIC&TUItB AT BUA8PUR. CHHATraBOAItH Wrtt Prtttton 116^287 of2004 Suahil Kumar Agtawal - VeisiM - Uniou oftndia and finirothers ,1" 'itUii-' P08T VOft ORDBR OB 29" <X5TOBBR. 2004. ~55T L.C. Bhadoo Judge ^ HIGH COXniT 0»JUDICATOM; AT BIIAaPUR. GHHATHSGARH Writ PeUtlon Mo.2287 of 2004 Sushil Kumar Y^tawal - Versus - Uiuon of India and four ofhers Present; - Smt. Shobha Menon, Senior Advocate with Miss Shamaila Singhai, Advocate; Shri Vinay Harit, Senior Central Govemment Standing Counsel: Shri P. Diwakar, Advocate; Por the petitioner. Por respondents No. 1 to 4. For respondent No.5. ORDER (Passed on 29fh Octotoer. 20041 L.C. Bhadoo, J. 1. The petitioncr, who was one rffhe tendereis, subxaitted his teader m tesponse to fhe notice inviting tender No.W/A/T/42/2003-2004 dated 2.9.2003 issued by thc respoadent RaBways, has questioned fhe tegaUty and correctness of acceptancc tetter dated 8.6.2004 (Annexure P-13) issiied by the Senior Divaional Engincer (respondent No.4) in favour of lespondeat No.5, wherehy he bas been aUowed to suppty, delweiy and stacldaag of 1 lateh cubfc incter machine crushed track baBast as per the Raabvay'9 specification fiom out side the RaBway land at Nagar (N.G.E) & Surajpiu- (S.J.Q) Depote. 2. Bnef facts teadu^ to fiUng of this writ petitioa are that fhe respondent Soufh Esst Central Raflway {respondeat No.3 - Divisional RaOway Man^er (Ei^uieeringj} issucd a notice inviting tender (NFT) bearing No.W/A/T/ 42/2003-2004 for sup^r, deljvciy and stacking of 1 takh cubic meter machmc crashed teack baUast as pcr the speci&cation of RaUways for suppty of fhe same at N^ar & Surajpur Depots. TbK last date for subaussfon of fhe tender documents was 30th October, 2003. Apart froni (he ofhier texiderea-s the petitioner hetein and nspondeat No.5 also submitted their tender docuaifints wifhin the stlpulated tune. Oa 30al October, Page2ofl7 2003, as pcr thc NIT, fhe tender documents wcre opened and after scrutiny of the same vide the impugaed order (Axuaexutc P-13), tender ofifer of respondent No.5 was aecepted bwa% the towest prfcc oflfered by Iiim amongst aU thc tenderers. However, befere acceptencc of the said tetider the petituner hereia inade a repiesentatmn (Auaexurc P-11) to respondent No.2 (General Managci) on 28.1.2004 poiatiag out fhat reapondent No.5 has beea invited for negotiation in spite of fhe fact that he did not submit the BaUast Test Report along with the tender form which is in shecr contravcntion of fhe tender systeaa in to-to. In fhe tender foint it was nowhere mentioned fhat naere subnussion of fhe nioacy leceipt wiU suffice to justify the quaUty of fhe baBast to be suppUed. The tender documents were veiy specific regaixling submissfon of the baBast test teport of fhe quarries finna whcre the baBast would be suppUcd aad thc test report must be ofveiy reeent date, but should not be older than aix monfhs fiTOin fhe date of subaussion of the tender docuinents. A^rteved by thc hapugned decision, fhe petitioner herein bas SSed this writ petition, mamly on two grounds viz., fhat fiimishmg of the test report of impact value, abrasion value and water absorption value of the baUast to be suppUed was maadatoiy as per the NFT and tender documents, whereas an tfae date of submission of fhe tender documents, respondent No.5 only submitted fhe recdpt of deposit of baDast in the labotatoiy for testu^; fhat does not meet fhe requu'enient As per flie tender documents, respondent No.5, in order to becomc digibte, ought to have subinitted the test rcport itself. Therefore, fhe respondent Raflway ought to have rejected fhe offer of respoadent No.5 in spite of the fact that the offer of respondeat No.5 was flie lowest. The respoitdents were not entifted to relax fhe said condttioa and accept the test report, which was fumished by xcspondcnt No.5 on 11.11.2003 i.e. after the last date of submission of fhc teader documente. Therefore, fhe action of fhe respondents taatamoiints to discriminatoiy, &vouritBStn, oppose to fhe rule of law and constitutioiial values, prejudicial to fhe petitioner, violative ofArttelc 14 of fhe Constitution of India aad ey.amst the pubUc inteiest. The second grouad on wfaich fhe petitioaer has questioned the iinpugned order te that thc respondents had not specified in tfae NIT, fhe ratio of quantfty of suppty at Nagar & Surajpiu- Depots. Page3ofl7 cu../ y Ultimatety, the pctitmner requested to qtiash the nnpugncd acceptance order and duect thc respondent Raflway to issue firesh NFT m accoidance with law. 3. In fhe retum submitted by fhe RaBways on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4, it has bcen naentioned fhat it is incorrect to say fhat fhc decision ofrespondents No. 1 to 4 is arbitiaiy or smacks favouritfem. The dispute relates to conteact inatter, whfch requires adducaig of cvidence, therefore, ttic writ petitfon is not mamtainahte. The petitfoner ought to have approached the civil Court or fhe Centeal V^flance Conunission. The tender process was carried-oa under fhe watebful eyes of a High Level Tcnder Conunittee comprisiag of three Senior Atlmitdsteative Orade Officers of Raflway Adminteteation, who after exatiunmg afl aspccts of fhe inatter, decided to accept thc tender of respoxideat No.5, because fhe rate oflfered by him was coiapetitive and the teader dociunents werc found to be coinplcte ia all respects as per the rules aad regulatfons. There beu^; no illegality, arbitrarincss, favouritism or unreasonablencss, iu fhc action of xcspondents No. 1 to 4, fhc writ petition be disnussed. It has further been meationed fhat the pouit raised by thc petittoner that tfae ballast test report ou^it to Iiave becn fited atong with the tender documcnte has no force in the light of the fiict (hat testing of inaterial in qiiestion is dane by Geo Techaical Engmeering Laboratoiy of ffae answering respoiideuts themsdves, and also because of the fact that fhe testii^ proccss beiag len^thy requiru^; time of 20-30 days far prepariag fiiial test report, and furfher also becausc of fhe Sact fhat test report in respcct of a test carried-on more fhan six nnonfhs prior to ffae date of subiaission of tender was not acceptabte, tbc picof of fhe submission of sacaple of baBast pxoposcd to be suppMcd by the tenderer to the Oeo Techiiical Engfaicering Laboi-atoiy was consuleied sufficient Accordu^ty, fhe test roport submitted ia due course of tnae after its 'hscvmg teecn recewed fiom the laboxatcay was taken into consideration bcforc fiiialization of fhe conteact Copy of the ChiefTrack Enpncer's letter dated 14.1.2002 to fhis efifect is Anncxure R-l. It has further been clarified that even fhou^i the tender conditions stipiilated fer subxnission oftest report ofbaBasl, but, as atoeady submttted the proofofsubaussion ofbaBast samptes to the RaSmay's Geo Tcchnical Laboiatoiy was coiMideced suffiCTent >^L P^e4ofl7 coiapliance for consideratton of the tender. The represcntations received by fhe Teiider Committee were duty takcn iato consideradon before fheir being icjected by fhe Tendcr Conuaittee. Therefore, fhe contentioa of thc petitioaer lias no foice as the decision was takcn in the public interest and in ttie interest of Railways as weU as in accordance wiffa tfae pubUc policy. 4. Respondent No.5 in his rctum has subxnitted (hat fhe answCTing icspondent has already started work on the land on which the lease has been granted by fhe CoBector, Korea, after recewing fhe ocder dated 8.6.2004. Ia feict, huge quantUy ofcru^ied ballast fa already ready for suppty and as soon as fhe rain wfll permit, fhe same would be sent to the dcstixiation. AU Ihe machineries havc beea mstaUed aad are functioiung on the spot for which thc answering respoiideat has aheady invested a bu%e ainount. Copy of retevant documents to ttus efifect is Annexuie R-5-l. The petitfoner's notion is misconceived that fhe baUast test report was necessary at fhc time of submission of fhe tender docunients. llicBe was no maadatoiy <»nditfon tbat fhe said report is to be subaiitted along with the tender form. Docuinent Annexure P-3 as filed by flic petitiDner is veiy ctear to tfais efFecfc The answermg respondent has fUcd a copy of fhe tender form showing warious conditions of fhc tender aad the said fonn is Annexure R-5-2. In the tender fbrm itsdf eUgibflity criteria has been fixed and the answering rcspoadent bad fulfitted aU fhosc eligibiUly criteria, fhea oaly fhe woris arder has beea issued aad fhe work has been started by him. The last date for subaussion and opening of the tender vras 30th October, 2003, meaning fhereby that oa fhe basis of fhe documents subinitted by the parties, the tender was to be opaied and then afier vcrification of fhc docuiaents, tihe woit order was to be issued. As pcr fhc tender documeats, 120 days tnne waa altowed to tfac Etepartment to scrutinize fhc tcnder and documents, aad after vcrification of fhe documents, the work oider was given. In fact, respondent No.5 had subinitted appMcatfam on 30.10.2003 for obtaining the test report, receipt of which was encloscd aSomg wlfh the tender documents, aad uUiinatety on 11.11.2003 a Teport wsts fosued by thc laboratoiy of Railway coiifinning the fact tfaat the sampks submitted by the answem^ respoadeat was up to thc mark. Copy of fhe report is Aasesmxe R-5-3. The said icceipt aloiig c/- - P^5ofl7 ,y•'?0 ^" with fhe teHder form was subiaitted. It was not maadatoty to submit fhe report stooy wifh fhe tender. Q>ndition No.3.2 of fhe tender fonn fiufher xnakes it ctear that tenderer shaB also fumiah aa uadertaking as iucorporated in the tender docuiaeats fhat the baBast suppUed at aU tiines wiU coufirm to speciBcations for track, baBast as specified by Raflway. Oncc fhc tender has beea ft>uad to be correct, valid fhen fhc question of interfeaence at the instaace <rf fhc petitioner who •was admittedty L-2 is not pennissible under thc law. So fer as split ofwork, 80% in onc depot and 20% an anotfaer dcpot, it does not afifect fhc right of fhe petitionfir at aBL la thc tendcr form itsdf, condition No.3 shatt make it ctear that the quantily shown in the attached schedute was guidance and only approximate, and fhe samc was subject to variation acconlM^; to tfae needs of fhe RaUway. Respondeut No.5 bas already startcd executu^ fhe work, fhcrefore, fhe writ petition is not maiatainable. In fhc prevfous year also, same practfce was prevaiMag which has been foBowed by (he answemq; respondent for submittnig the present teiider. None of the tendcrs has ever been rejected by thc RaaSway Dcpartment on the giound of non-submission of tte test report at the time of subanittmg tender form. Thc RaibFay Department always acccpts fhc reccipt confirming fhe fact that fhe test report is ben^; soi^ht by thc tenderer and wiiencver fhat report com.es to fhe Raflw^ Dcpartment ater the openingof tetuler, such report is Taesag considered by tfae Departanent and fhea onty fhe work oider is bemg issued. The iutention of gettfng fhe test report is not to debar any person fiioin participating in ftve tender or fioin awariiag fhc work order but fhe intention is to ensiare tihe quaUly of matedal whlch is to be supplied aad keeping tbis object ia mind, fhere are further clauses in fhe agreement The oflfer of tfae answermg respondent, being fhe towest, has been r^jtitty aecepted. It has been reqiiested fhat the petitfon bc dfamissed. 5. Rejoindcr Iias becn filed by fhe petittoncr an whteh it has becn denied fhat respoiident No.5 has conunenced the work and necessaiy documents in support of the repfy have been fiimishcd showing fhat so far work has not coaamenced. 6. I have heard tearaed coiinsel for the parties. Page6ofl7 |<2,C> 7. Leamcd Senior Advocate for thc petitioner primarily aad mainty stressed upon fhe point tfaat as per fhe terms and conditions of fhe tender it was necessary for every tenderer to siibmit fhe test report of the Raflway Laboratoiy regardiag the baUast which is to be supplied aad fhe icspondent Raflway was not within the right to relax fhat condition as respondent No.5 on fhc date of opcaing fhe tender was not cUgibte siace he submitted fhc test report onfy on 11.11.2003. Leanied Seufor Counsel wliilc drawing fhc attention of fhc Court towards ffae previous NIT (Annexure P-3) issued by (he RaDways argucd tfaat whcrevcT the respondent Railway had intention fhat subaiission of fhe test report atoag wlfh the tender docunients was not iiecessaty, it indicated so ia the NfT, and in the present case ia the NIT (Annexure P-1) it was specfficalty mentioiied that the test aeport of the baUast rcgaRling the unpa;t value, abrasioa value and water absorption value was to bc submitted along witfa the tender. She also drew fhe attention of the Court towaids clause 3 of tenns and conditions of tfae tender, which is under fhc heading ''Conditions for Submission of Tendei', sub- clause (3.1) envis^es tfaat cach tendercr at tfae tiuie of tendering sfaaffl subxnit fhe test report. She fiuther axgued white placinj reliaace on the dociunent (Anncxure R-l) dated 14.1.2002 submitted by fhe respondcnt Raflways issued by fhe Chief Track Engineer, Soufh Eastem RsaSway, fhat it was maadatoxy for tenderer to subiDit fhe test report aSiwag with the tender form, in which it has been mentioned fhat *as per fatest specifications fhe submission of test report is mandatoty and fhe tender should be Bejccted if fhe tenderer/ teaderers does/do not subnut the same, however ia case the delsyr is due to Raih?^ Oeo Lab. in submittmg the Test Results, then a Certificate fium Railway Authonty has to be subxnitted atong with Tender fhat he/they has/have already submitted fhe baBast sampte for testing the samc". 8. Oa fhe ofher haad, leamed Standing Counsd fbr respondents No.l to 4 aigued that subaussion of the test icport atong with the tendcr documents was aot inandatoiy aad simpte submission of reccipt regarding submission of thc sample for test was sufficient and it was fhe piactice earijer also, because the Geo Techiiieal Engineermg Laboratcuy normaUy takes 20-30 dsys time for preparu^ the final ^ Page7ofl7 test reporfc Therefore it could have been subnutted at fhe titnc of scrutiuy ofthe tender docuaients. 9. Sanflar aigumcnt was advaaced by leamed counsel for respondcnt No.5 and he submitted fhat in the eligibilily criteria in the tender document there was no such condition fhat the test report was to be submitted sib>»gwith the tender doczunents. He also usged fhat various clauses of fhe tender documcnt shows fhat even durmg fhe suppty period, regular inspcction is to be conducted by thc Railway aufhoa'itics, therefore, fhere te no chance of supplyu^ sub-standard ballast In the circunustances, the subinission of the test report even after the last date of submission of tfae tender docuxnents was sufficient coxupliaacc axid fUs has been the practice of the respondents; foUowing the saine practfc«respondent No.5 being fhe lowest tenderer fhey righfty accepted his tender. Hc placed reMaace on the decision of the Hon'bfe Apex Court in thc matter of Directorate of Bducatlon and otliers v. Bduconp Datanatl<» Ltd. and othew reported in 2004 AIR 8CW ISOS. lO.Bcfore adverting to fhe aiguinente advanced by fhe respective counscl, it is necessaiy to look iato retewant ]aw on fhe poiat as has bccn laid down by fhe Hon'ble Apcx Court about fhe powers of H%h Court for exercisn^ judicial aeview uader Arttele 226 of fhe Constitution oflndia ia the matter ofaward ofcoatracts. 11 .The Hon'bk Apex Coiut after reviewing all case law on fhe point as to the extent to judiaial review peraussible la contt-actual matters whfle inviting bids by issuing tetiders has toeen exanuned in detaU in fhe matter of Tata CeUutar v. Unton of Indta reported in 1994 (6) SCC 6SI and held that "94. The priaciples dcducibte fiom the above are: (1)The modem trend points to judicial restraint in adxnuustrative action, (2) The Court does not sit as a Court of appeal but inerety aeviews fhe inanner ia which ttie deciakm was made. (3) The Court does not have the expertise to coraect tfae administrativc decision. If a rcview of fhe adinmfateatiye deci^on is pennitted it wiB be substituting its own decfaK)n, wifhqut thc necessaxy cxpertise which itself aiay be faUBtIe. f4) The ienns of the inwfadon to fender otuwusl be open tojudictdl sav.finy because <he wwilcctian (o lender is fn ihe realtn of coniract. Narmally speaking, ffie Page8ofl7 decision to accept the tender or ccward the contract is reached by process of negotiations through several tiers. More often than not, such dedswns are made quatitcctwely by experls. (5) The Govermnent must have freedam of cantracl. In other wards, afair play in thejoinls is a necessary oorworrtttant for an administra.tive body fwustionxng in an acbrtirastrative sphere or ijMfsi-adimniatrative sphere. However, the dedsion nwst not only be tested by the appKcation of Wednesbury principle of reascmableness findwSng fls oiher/acfe poinled out above) but nwst be jree ftwn arbitrariness rwf cffeded by bias w actuccted by maJaftttes, (6) Quashing decteioas may imposc heavy adinBustrative burden on thc adiiuiustration aad kad to iacaeased and unbudgeted expendituFe." (Eiaphasfa suppUed) 12.In another decfaion in the matter of Alr India LInlted v. Coehla Internatlonal Airport Limlted reported iu {WOO) 2 8CC 617, the Hon'bte Apex Court observed fhat "The award of a contract, whethcr it is by a private pariy or by a public body or the State, is esscntialfy a coaaneTcial transaction. In arrivin^ at a eommercaal decision considerations which are paramount are coinmercial considerations. The Stafe oan dwose its awn method to arrive at a. dedsion. It cccn.ftx, ifs own terms of mwtafi'on to fendter dnd ffud »s nrt open (o judidcd scrutiny. It cau enter iato negotiations before fiinalty dcddn^ to accept one of fhe offers made to it. Price need not always be the sole criterion for awarding a contract. It is ficc to grant aay relaxation, for bona &ie icasons, if thc tender conditions pcmnit such a relaxation. It inay not acccpt the oflfer even though it happens to be fhe highest or (he towest But fhe Stete, ite corporattons, instrunientalities and agencies are bound to adhere to fhc norms, standaids and procedincs laid down by them. and cannot depart fiom thcm arbitranfy. Though that dccision is not amenable to judicial review, the Court can examiae fhe decision-making proccss aad iaterfere if ft is bound vitiated by mala fides, unreasonabtencss and aibitrariness." (Einphasis suppUed) 13.The law laid dcwn by tfae Hon'ble Apex Coiut ia the aibove decisions is fhat the terms of fhe iavitation to tender are not open to judicial scrutiny fhe saaae bcing ia the realm of conteact The State and its instrumentaUties must have a ficc haud iu settiag the tenns of the tender. It must have reasonable play in its joiats as a necessaiy concomitant for an administrative body ia an admmistratwe sphere. Page9ofl7 The Courts would Biterfere wifh the adaunistrative policy dedsion onfy if it is arblteaiy, discrimiaatoiy, mala fide or actuated by bias. It is entitted to pr^tnatic adjustments, which may be called for by the particular CB'cumstanccs. Tbc Courts cannot strilre down tfae terms of the tender prescribcd by fhe Govemment because it fecls that soiae ofhcr tenns ia the tender would have been fair, wteer or logical. The Courts can intcrfere only if the poUcy decision fa arbiteaiy, discrixninatoxy or mala fide. 14.In the matter of NoiMurdi Infrartructiue (Pj Ud. v. <^>mmlsstoaer, unMUtaagn Mnaidptd Corpmratioa aad others reported in (2000) B 8CC 287, it was hdd by fhe Hon'ble Apex Court fhat tfae terms and condltions in thc tender are piescnbed by the Govenuaent bearing in miad fhe nature of contrart and ia such matters fhe aufhorily caUiag for the tender is the bcst judge to preseribc fhe terms aad conditions of fhe tender. It is not fnr the Courts to say whefher fhe conditions prescribed in fhc tender under consideratfons wcre better than fhc one prescribed in fhe earlier tender invitatioas, But, in case offhc dctetion ofel^flaitity coaditioa after expuy of the time-lunit for submission of tenders, but bcfore opeaai^ fhe tendw, the Court heU fhat award of contract to a teadcrer who at the time of submission of tender did not satisfy the said condition rightty set aside by High Court as arbitiary. The Apex Court furtfaer hdd that the Govenunent caanot arbitrarUy choose any person it Ukcs for entering into such a relationsblp or to discriminate belwecn persons smularfy situate. The Govemment can reject even the h^hest bid at a tender where such rejection is not arbitraiy or unreasoiiable or such rejection M ia pubMc interest for valid aad good reasons as faimess and equal treatment should be given to all fhe tenderers and affl participaats in fhe tender prcx^ss shouM bc treated aUke. 15.In fhe matter ofRammMi Dayaram Slietty v. Interaattoiial Ateport Authority of Indla and others reported in (1979) 3 8CC 489, &e Apex Court held fhat ''Adminteteati.ve aufhority is equaBy bouad by the nonns, standaads aud proccdures laid down by it for otfaers - Disregard of the norm or standard would uivaUdate its action unfess based on somc valfal priaciple which is neither inational or unreasonable ^cD PagelOofH nor discruninatoiy - Rule agaiust such arbiteajy actioa applies nidcpendenfty ofArticte 14." "Standaid of el^ibUily laid down iu the notice for tenders, held, canaot be departed fioin arbitrarity - Such dcparture fn>tn fhc staudard, lield, wiU amount to dciiial of equalUy of oppprtuiuty to thosc who felt bound by the stoadard of eligibflity aad therefore did uot submit their tenders." ''Relaxation of fhe standard of cligibility at thc time of considering the tenders or appKcations, held, wffl ainount to a denial of opporturdy to those who considenag fhemselves inel^Ible did not appty." In the mattcr of Ramnna (anpra), tenders were iavited by fhc Intematioiial Airport Aufhorily fiom. "Registered IInd class hoteliers having at least 5 ycars' experience for putting up aad running a IInd class Resteuraat and two Snack Bars at the Airport for a period of3 yeaxs". The tender of respondent No.4 being lughest was acccpted, but respondent No.4 pointed out thenaselves that their experiencc relating to catering was for ten years m mnning canteens for weU- known oiganizations. Therefore, respoadcnt No.4 was fouad lackii^g in el^ibility criteria, as he was not haviag ''Registered IIad class hotelier hawing at teast 5 years' expenence", but was haviag experience of catering in canteens. The Coiut held that accepting the tender of respondent No.4 was contraiy to the condition of eligibitity and was not flexibfe. There was thus, denial of equal opportunily ofifending Article 14 ofthe Constitution oflndia. 16. In fhc matter of W.B. State Btectorlclty Bowd v. Patel Baglneering Co. Ltd. aad others reported in (20011 2 SCG 4SI, thc Apex Court heldthat ''Disfeibution of State laiysse - Govenuaent Ccmtracte - Tendcrs - Rtde of taw and constitutional values, xnust be adhered to when awardn^ contract - Rutes aad mstructfons must be complied wifh scrupulousfy in order to avoid discriinination, arbitearmess and favouritfain, wluch are contraiy to rulc of law aad constitutional values - Rdaxation by State or ite agencies of a ruto or condition in Sewovx ofa partacular bidder, held, not permissible untess expressty pravided for in fbe rutes. 'Protection of pubUc interest - Adherence to the rutes, held, is fhe best principle to be foltowed in fhe public interest* ''Principte ofawarding contract to lowest tenderer, hdd applies when aU things are equal." -——-- P^ellofl? ^c i /' It was furfher hdd fhat "where bidders who fulfiU pre-qxiaUfication alone are nwited to