Case: National High Speed Rail Corporation Limited Vs. Montecarlo Limited &amp; Anr

2. That the appellant herein – NHSRCL is a Government Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013 with equity participation of the Government of India, Government of Gujarat and Government of Maharashtra, incorporated with the object to finance, construct, maintain and manage the upcoming High Speed Rail Corridor in India.2.1 That the NHSRCL issued a tender notice on 22.10.2020 calling for bids in relation to the Bid Package No. MAHSR-8 for the Design and Construction of Civil and Building Works for the Depot on Design Build Lump Sum Price Basis for Double Line High Speed Railway involving works for Site Formation, Abutment, Retaining Walls, Roadbed for track, Box Culvert, Roads, Cable Duct, Foundations of OHE Masts, Piping, Drainage, Water Supply, Water Harvesting, Fire Fighting, Land-scraping, Boundary Wall, General Inspection Train Shed, Maintenance Depot and other Associated Works at Sabarmati between MAHSR Km. 507.599 and MAHSR Km. 509.726 in the State of Gujarat for the Project of Construction of Mumbai-Ahmedabad High Speed Rail, (hereinafter referred to as the Project).2.2 That the Technical Bids submitted by various bidders including the original writ petitioner, were opened by the NHSRCL on 19.02.2021. The original writ petitioner alongwith four other bidders were declared unsuccessful. The NHSRCL informed the original writ petitioner through uploading of Technical Proposal Evaluation Summary on 27.04.2021 on CPPP that the Bid of the original writ petitioner alongwith four other bidders have been rejected at Technical Stage. The original writ petitioner sought the reasons for rejection of its Bid. In response, NHSRCL vide its communication dated 28.04.2021 addressed to original writ petitioner informed that its Bid was not substantially responsive. A reference was made to Clauses ITB 28.1 and 42.5. Under clause 28.1 information relating to the evaluation of the Bids and recommendation of the Contract award shall not be disclosed to bidders or any other persons, not officially concerned, with such process until information on Contract award is communicated to all bidders in accordance with ITB 42. As per clause 42.5, only after notification of award, unsuccessful Bidders may request, in writing, to the Employer a debriefing seeking explanations on the grounds on which their Bids were not selected and the Employer shall promptly respond, in writing, to any unsuccessful Bidders who, after the notification of the award in accordance with ITB 42.1, request a debriefing. It appears that NHSRCL acted as per the aforesaid two clauses.2.3 Aggrieved by the aforesaid communication/notification dated 27.04.2021 and 28.04.2021 respectively and aggrieved by the disqualification of its Bid, the original writ petitioner approached the High Court by way of writ petition being Writ Petition (C) No. 5127 of 2021 and by the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has allowed the said writ petition and has quashed and set aside the communications dated 27.04.2021 and 28.04.2021 and the notification dated 28.04.2021 rejecting the Bid of original writ petitioner at Technical Stage.2.4 While allowing the writ petition, the High Court has commented upon Clauses 28.1 and 42.5 of ITB and has observed that not to give reasons at that stage would tantamount to depriving the bidders to approach the Court and know the reasons for rejection of their Bid. That thereafter the High Court has considered the reasons for which the Bid submitted by the original writ petitioner was found to be technically non- responsive and has overruled the objections while treating the Bid as technically non-responsive and has observed and held that the Bid submitted by the original writ petitioner was substantially responsive and that there was a substantial compliance of the terms and conditions of the Bid document. Consequently, the High Court has quashed and set aside the aforesaid communications rejecting the original writ petitioners Bid at Technical Stage as a technically non-responsive and has directed the NHSRCL to consider and evaluate the Bid submitted by the original writ petitioner alongwith the Bids submitted by four other bidders.2.5 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, the NHSRCL has preferred the present appeal.

Court's reasoning:
6.3 The present matter pertains to the tender floated for works in Package C8, which is a part of various other Packages being finalized for the implementation of the Mumbai-Ahmedabad High Speed Rail popularly known as Bullet Train Project. It cannot be disputed that the Bullet Train Project is very important and National project.6.10 From the aforesaid, it appears that a conscious decision has been taken by the JICC (consultant) approved/concurred by the JICA on the Bid submitted by the original writ petitioner as non-responsive and non- compliant to the technical requirements of the Bidding Documents. The decision of the JICC and JICA has been followed by the appellant herein – Corporation, which otherwise, they were bound to as per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement as well as the general terms and conditions referred to hereinabove.6.11 From the aforesaid, it can be seen that the decision to hold that the Bid was not responsive was of JICC. Under the contractual mechanism, the appellant had no authority to deviate from the evaluation done by JICC. Any deviation by the appellant or Government of India may not be acceptable by JICA, who has agreed to fund a huge sum of approximately Rs. 1 lakh crores for the Bullet Train Project, which was funded on the terms and conditions agreed between the JICA and the Republic of India / Honble the President of India. It is ultimately for the JICC/JICA to take a decision whether the Bid submitted by a particular Bidder is responsive or not and/or compliant or not to the technical requirements of the Bidding Documents. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that what is weighed by the High Court is that some of the Bidders were called for negotiation and the original writ petitioner was not called for the negotiation and therefore the High Court has held that the action of the appellant is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. However, the High Court has not appreciated that it was the decision of the JICC concurred by the JICA that the Bid submitted by the original writ petitioner was non-responsive and non-compliant to the technical requirements of the Bidding Documents. It appears that the JICC thought it fit to call clarification from some of the Bidders at the initial stage, however, it was found that the Bid submitted by the respondent – original writ petitioner was suffering from material deviation, the JICC thought it fit not to call for any explanation and/or clarification from the original writ petitioner and the Bid submitted by the respondent – original writ petitioner was rejected at the first stage itself, i.e., at the stage of Technical Evaluation.6.12 At the cost of repetition, it is observed that the appellant herein acted as per the decision of the JICC concurred by JICA. As per the contractual obligation and the terms and conditions of the loan agreement as well as the Guidelines for procurement under the Japanese ODA loans and the Memorandum of Understanding and the terms and conditions on which the JICA agreed to fund a huge sum of approximately Rs.1 lakh crores, the JICC and JICA can be said to be the final authority and no contrary decision to the decision of the JICC/JICA could have been taken by the appellant, more particularly, with respect to the Bidding Process etc. It cannot be disputed that being the funding agency, who has agreed to fund such a huge amount, role of the JICA is very important and the JICA would always have an upper hand and the say in the entire Project. From the material on record, we are satisfied that the Bidding Procedure adopted is transparent, fair and does not suffer from any arbitrariness. It is required to be noted that as such there are no allegations of mala fides and/or favouritism either against the appellant or against JICC and/or JICA.7.1 While considering the aforesaid issue, few decisions of this Court are required to be referred to and considered coupled with the fact that Bullet Train Project is a high cost and MEGA Government Project and is funded by a foreign country and which is one of the biggest National Project. It is to be noted that foreign sovereign funded contracts, like the present one, are completely different and distinct from the Government Contracts/ Public Works Department Contracts / Public Private Partnership Contracts, which are either wholly or partially funded from public money, i.e., Consolidated Fund of India or of the State and implemented by a statutory/local authority of the State. It cannot be disputed that in the present case, Japan being friendly sovereign country – a developed nation has agreed to fund a huge amount for a National Project in favour of another friendly State – developing nation – in the present case, the Republic of India. Such a huge sum/amount is funded by the developed nation to implement the Project meant for development of the developing nation – the Republic of India. The contracts are entered into and the huge sum is funded on the basis of non-negotiated terms and conditions and therefore, the foreign developed nation, who has agreed to invest/fund such a huge amount is always justified in insisting for their own terms and conditions on which such a huge amount is funded.7.2 At this stage, a decision of the Gujarat High Court, which has been confirmed by this Court in the case of CRRC Corporation Ltd. Vs. Metro-Link Express for Gandhinagar and Ahmedabad (MEGA) Company Ltd. in Special Civil Application No.12833 of 2017 is required to be referred to. In that case the Metro Rail Project was financed by the JICA. One GEC was appointed as consultant. Bid submitted by one of the Bidders was rejected on the ground that the same was non-responsive. The decision was taken by the Metro Rail Corporation after consulting JICA. Rejection of the Bid at Technical Stage was the subject matter of writ petition before the High Court. One of the submissions made on behalf of the Bidder was that the JICA ought not to have been consulted and that decision could not have been taken on the basis of the opinion of the JICA. While rejecting the submission on behalf of the original writ petitioner that JICA ought not to have been consulted, it was observed that when the entire project is being financed by the JICA, and when JICA is going to fund the entire project, the cost of which is Rs. 10,773 Crores, it is expected of the JICA that the whole process of awarding tender has to be done and is being done, after obtaining JICAs concurrence at all stages. It was held that there is nothing wrong in involving JICA at every stage of tender process and in obtaining JICAs concurrence on it. In the present case also, no wrong has been committed by the appellant corporation in accepting and/or taking decision to reject the original writ petitioners Bid at Technical Stage on the basis of the decision of the JICC approved/concurred by JICA.7.3 It is required to be noted that as per the tender documents, all the Bidders were required to adhere to the requirements as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the tender document. There cannot be any deviation by any Bidder. The terms and conditions of the tender documents were settled by the JICA as per JICAs International Guidelines, which are required to be followed by all Bidders including the original writ petitioner. Therefore, when the terms and conditions of the tender document were settled by the JICA, it is ultimately for the JICC/JICA to take a decision whether a Bid submitted by a particular Bidder is non-responsive and/or non-compliant to the technical requirements of the Bidding Documents. Therefore, when a conscious decision has been taken by the JICC/JICA on the Bid submitted by the original writ petitioner being non-responsive/non-compliant to the technical requirements of the Bidding Documents, unless there are specific allegations of mala fides and/or favouritism, the same could not have been the subject matter of scrutiny by the High Court in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.7.4 At this stage, the decision of this Court in the case of Asia Foundation and Construction Ltd. Vs. Trafalgar House Construction (I) Ltd. and Ors., (1997) 1 SCC 738  is required to be referred to. In that case, before this Court, the offer made by the Bidder, who was found to be L1 was not accepted after consulting the international financial institutions such as Asian Development Bank/World Bank, approving the same, this Court observed that it is difficult for a country to go ahead with such a high-cost projects unless the financial institutions the Asian Development Bank and/or the World Bank grant loan/subsidy. It is further observed that when such financial institutions grant such huge loan, they always insist that for any project for which loan has been sanctioned must be carried out in accordance with the specifications and within the scheduled time and the procedure for granting the award must be duly adhered to. In the case before this Court, there was some dispute between the Bank on the one hand and the consultant, who was called upon to evaluate bids on the question whether there is any power of making any correction to the bid documents after a specified period. The High Court after construing certain clauses of the bid documents came to the conclusion that such a correction was permissible, and therefore, the Bank could not have insisted upon granting the contract in favour of the appellant therein. This Court did not accept the view taken by the High Court by observing that it was not within the permissible limits of interference for a court of law, particularly when the Court has not found any mala fides / favouritism in the grant of contract.7.5 From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court and as observed hereinabove, the High Court has set aside the decision of the appellant to reject the Bid submitted by the original writ petitioner as non-responsive and suffering from material deviation on the ground of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India by observing that other Bidders were called for clarification but the original writ petitioner was not called. However, as observed hereinabove, the appellant had taken a decision as per the decision taken by the JICC/JICA. JICC/JICA took a conscious decision to reject the Bid of the original writ petitioner as non- responsive/non-complaint and the same was found to be material deviation.7.6 At this stage, it is to be noted that what can be said to be substantially responsive Technical Bid has been defined under Article 33.2. The High Court in the impugned order has observed and held that the Bid submitted by the original writ petitioner can be said to be substantially responsive Technical Bid. However, it is required to be noted that when the author of the tender document, in the present case, JICC/JICA, had taken a conscious decision that the Bid submitted by the respondent – original writ petitioner can be said to be non-responsive and suffering from material deviation, it was not for the High Court to consider/opine whether the Bid submitted by the original writ petitioner is substantially responsive Technical Bid or not unless the decision is found to be perverse and/or suffered from mala fides and/or favoritism.7.7 At the cost of repetition, it is to be noted that under the contractual obligation, it was not open for the appellant – corporation and/or even the Republic of India to deviate from any of the terms and conditions of the loan agreement and/or the decision of JICC/JICA. Therefore, in absence of any allegation of mala fides/arbitrariness and/or favouritism, we are of the opinion that the High Court has committed a grave error in interfering with a conscious decision taken by the JICC/JICA, which has been followed by the appellant.7.8.1 In the case of Afcons Infrastructure Limited Vs. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Limited, AIR 2016 SC 4305 , this Court in paras 11 to 13 and 15 has observed and held as under :-11. Recently, in Central Coalfields Ltd. v. SLL-SML (Joint Venture Consortium), (2016) 8 SCC 622,  it was held by this Court, relying on a host of decisions that the decision- making process of the employer or owner of the project in accepting or rejecting the bid of a tenderer should not be interfered with. Interference is permissible only if the decision-making process is mala fide or is intended to favour someone. Similarly, the decision should not be interfered with unless the decision is so arbitrary or irrational that the Court could say that the decision is one which no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with law could have reached. In other words, the decision- making process or the decision should be perverse and not merely faulty or incorrect or erroneous. No such extreme case was made out by GYT-TPL JV in the High Court or before us.12. In Dwarkadas Marfatia and Sons v. Port of Bombay, (1989) 3 SCC 293,  it was held that the constitutional courts are concerned with the decision-making process. Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651  went a step further and held that a decision if challenged (the decision having been arrived at through a valid process), the constitutional courts can interfere if the decision is perverse. However, the constitutional courts are expected to exercise restraint in interfering with the administrative decision and ought not to substitute its view for that of the administrative authority. This was confirmed in Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa, (2007) 14 SCC 517,  as mentioned in Central Coalfields Ltd. v. SLL-SML (Joint Venture Consortium), (2016) 8 SCC 622 .13. In other words, a mere disagreement with the decision-making process or the decision of the administrative authority is no reason for a constitutional court to interfere. The threshold of mala fides, intention to favour someone or arbitrariness, irrationality or perversity must be met before the constitutional court interferes with the decision-making process or the decision.15. We may add that the owner or the employer of a project, having authored the tender documents, is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements and interpret its documents. The constitutional courts must defer to this understanding and appreciation of the tender documents, unless there is mala fide or perversity in the understanding or appreciation or in the application of the terms of the tender conditions. It is possible that the owner or employer of a project may give an interpretation to the tender documents that is not acceptable to the constitutional courts but that by itself is not a reason for interfering with the interpretation given.7.8.4 In the case of the Central Coalfields Limited & Anr. Vs. SLL- SML [A Joint Venture Consortium] and Ors., (2016) 8 SCC 622,  it is specifically observed and held by this Court that the Court must, as far as possible, avoid a construction which would render the words used by the author of the document meaningless and futile or reduce to silence any part of the document and make it altogether inapplicable. It is further observed that whether a term of NIT is essential or not is a decision taken by the employer, which should be respected and soundness of that decision cannot be questioned by Court. In the case before this Court, the bid was rejected for non furnishing of bank guarantee in prescribed format. While submitting EMD by furnishing bank guarantee in format prescribed by GTC of another tender and the bidder took the plea that bank guarantee format of present tender was ambiguous. Rejecting the claim of the bidder and upholding the decision of the employer of rejection of bid for non-compliance of submitting the bank guarantee in prescribed format, this Court in paras 31 to 38, 42 to 44, 47 to 49, 52, 55 and 56 has observed and held as under:31. We were informed by the learned Attorney General that 9 of the 11 bidders furnished a bank guarantee in the prescribed and correct format. Under these circumstances, even after stretching our credulity, it is extremely difficult to understand why JVC was unable to access the prescribed format for the bank guarantee or furnish a bank guarantee in the prescribed format when every other bidder could do so or why it could not seek a clarification or why it could not represent against any perceived ambiguity. The objection and the conduct of JVC regarding the prescribed format of the bank guarantee or a supposed ambiguity in NIT does not appear to be fully above board.32. The core issue in these appeals is not of judicial review of the administrative action of CCL in adhering to the terms of NIT and the GTC prescribed by it while dealing with bids furnished by participants in the bidding process. The core issue is whether CCL acted perversely enough in rejecting the bank guarantee of JVC on the ground that it was not in the prescribed format, thereby calling for judicial review by a constitutional court and interfering with CCLs decision.33. In Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, (1979) 3 SCC 489,  this Court held that the words used in a document are not superfluous or redundant but must be given some meaning and weightage: (SCC p. 500, para 7)7. … It is a well-settled rule of interpretation applicable alike to documents as to statutes that, save for compelling necessity, the Court should not be prompt to ascribe superfluity to the language of a document and should be rather at the outset inclined to suppose every word intended to have some effect or be of some use. To reject words as insensible should be the last resort of judicial interpretation, for it is an elementary rule based on common sense that no author of a formal document intended to be acted upon by the others should be presumed to use words without a meaning. The court must, as far as possible, avoid a construction which would render the words used by the author of the document meaningless and futile or reduce to silence any part of the document and make it altogether inapplicable.34. In Ramana Dayaram Shetty case, the expression registered IInd Class hotelier was recognised as being inapt and perhaps ungrammatical; nevertheless common sense was not offended in describing a person running a registered IInd grade hotel as a registered IInd class hotelier. Despite this construction in its favour, Respondent 4 in that case were held to be factually ineligible to participate in the bidding process.35. It was further held that if others (such as the appellant in Ramana Dayaram Shetty case) were aware that non-fulfilment of the eligibility condition of being a registered IInd class hotelier would not be a bar for consideration, they too would have submitted a tender, but were prevented from doing so due to the eligibility condition, which was relaxed in the case of Respondent 4. This resulted in unequal treatment in favour of Respondent 4 — treatment that was constitutionally impermissible. Expounding on this, it was held: (SCC p. 504, para 10)10. … It is indeed unthinkable that in a democracy governed by the rule of law the executive Government or any of its officers should possess arbitrary power over the interests of the individual. Every action of the executive Government must be informed with reason and should be free from arbitrariness. That is the very essence of the rule of law and its bare minimal requirement. And to the application of this principle it makes no difference whether the exercise of the power involves affectation of some right or denial of some privilege.36. Applying this principle to the present appeals, other bidders and those who had not bid could very well contend that if they had known that the prescribed format of the bank guarantee was not mandatory or that some other term(s) of NIT or GTC were not mandatory for compliance, they too would have meaningfully participated in the bidding process. In other words, by rearranging the goalposts, they were denied the privilege of participation.37. For JVC to say that its bank guarantee was in terms stricter than the prescribed format is neither here nor there. It is not for the employer or this Court to scrutinise every bank guarantee to determine whether it is stricter than the prescribed format or less rigorous. The fact is that a format was prescribed and there was no reason not to adhere to it. The goalposts cannot be rearranged or asked to be rearranged during the bidding process to affect the right of some or deny a privilege to some.38. In G.J. Fernandez v. State of Karnataka, (1990) 2 SCC 488,  both the principles laid down in Ramana Dayaram Shetty were reaffirmed. It was reaffirmed that the party issuing the tender (the employer) has the right to punctiliously and rigidly enforce the terms of the tender. If a party approaches a court for an order restraining the employer from strict enforcement of the terms of the tender, the court would decline to do so. It was also reaffirmed that the employer could deviate from the terms and conditions of the tender if the changes affected all intending applicants alike and were not objectionable. Therefore, deviation from the terms and conditions is permissible so long as the level playing field is maintained and it does not result in any arbitrariness or discrimination in Ramana Dayaram Shetty sense.42. Unfortunately, this Court in Poddar Steel Corpn. v. Ganesh Engg. Works, (1991) 3 SCC 273  did not at all advert to the privilege-of-participation principle laid down in Ramana Dayaram Shetty and accepted in G.J. Fernandez. In other words, this Court did not consider whether, as a result of the deviation, others could also have become eligible to participate in the bidding process. This principle was ignored in Poddar Steel.43. Continuing in the vein of accepting the inherent authority of an employer to deviate from the terms and conditions of an NIT, and reintroducing the privilege-of- participation principle and the level playing field concept, this Court laid emphasis on the decision-making process, particularly in respect of a commercial contract. One of the more significant cases on the subject is the three-Judge decision in Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651  which gave importance to the lawfulness of a decision and not its soundness. If an administrative decision, such as a deviation in the terms of NIT is not arbitrary, irrational, unreasonable, mala fide or biased, the courts will not judicially review the decision taken. Similarly, the courts will not countenance interference with the decision at the behest of an unsuccessful bidder in respect of a technical or procedural violation. This was quite clearly stated by this Court (following Tata Cellular) in Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa, (2007) 14 SCC 517]  in the following words: (SCC p. 531, para 22)22. Judicial review of administrative action is intended to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, bias and mala fides. Its purpose is to check whether choice or decision is made lawfully and not to check whether choice or decision is sound. When the power of judicial review is invoked in matters relating to tenders or award of contracts, certain special features should be borne in mind. A contract is a commercial transaction. Evaluating tenders and awarding contracts are essentially commercial functions. Principles of equity and natural justice stay at a distance. If the decision relating to award of contract is bona fide and is in public interest, courts will not, in exercise of power of judicial review, interfere even if a procedural aberration or error in assessment or prejudice to a tenderer, is made out. The power of judicial review will not be permitted to be invoked to protect private interest at the cost of public interest, or to decide contractual disputes. The tenderer or contractor with a grievance can always seek damages in a civil court. Attempts by unsuccessful tenderers with imaginary grievances, wounded pride and business rivalry, to make mountains out of molehills of some technical/procedural violation or some prejudice to self, and persuade courts to interfere by exercising power of judicial review, should be resisted. Such interferences, either interim or final, may hold up public works for years, or delay relief and succour to thousands and millions and may increase the project cost manifold.This Court then laid down the questions that ought to be asked in such a situation. It was said: (Jagdish Mandal case, SCC p. 531, para 22)22. … Therefore, a court before interfering in tender or contractual matters in exercise of power of judicial review, should pose to itself the following questions:(i) Whether the process adopted or decision made by the authority is mala fide or intended to favour someone;Whether the process adopted or decision made is so arbitrary and irrational that the court can say: the decision is such that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could have reached;(ii) Whether public interest is affected.If the answers are in the negative, there should be no interference under Article 226.44. On asking these questions in the present appeals, it is more than apparent that the decision taken by CCL to adhere to the terms and conditions of NIT and the GTC was certainly not irrational in any manner whatsoever or intended to favour anyone. The decision was lawful and not unsound.47. The result of this discussion is that the issue of the acceptance or rejection of a bid or a bidder should be looked at not only from the point of view of the unsuccessful party but also from the point of view of the employer. As held in Ramana Dayaram Shetty the terms of NIT cannot be ignored as being redundant or superfluous. They must be given a meaning and the necessary significance. As pointed out in Tata Cellular there must be judicial restraint in interfering with administrative action. Ordinarily, the soundness of the decision taken by the employer ought not to be questioned but the decision-making process can certainly be subject to judicial review. The soundness of the decision may be questioned if it is irrational or mala fide or intended to favour someone or a decision that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could have reached as held in Jagdish Mandal followed in Michigan Rubber.48. Therefore, whether a term of NIT is essential or not is a decision taken by the employer which should be respected. Even if the term is essential, the employer has the inherent authority to deviate from it provided the deviation is made applicable to all bidders and potential bidders as held in Ramana Dayaram Shetty. However, if the term is held by the employer to be ancillary or subsidiary, even that decision should be respected. The lawfulness of that decision can be questioned on very limited grounds, as mentioned in the various decisions discussed above, but the soundness of the decision cannot be questioned, otherwise this Court would be taking over the function of the tender issuing authority, which it cannot.49. Again, looked at from the point of view of the employer if the courts take over the decision-making function of the employer and make a distinction between essential and non-essential terms contrary to the intention of the employer and thereby rewrite the arrangement, it could lead to all sorts of problems including the one that we are grappling with. For example, the GTC that we are concerned with specifically states in Clause 15.2 that Any bid not accompanied by an acceptable Bid Security/EMD shall be rejected by the employer as non-responsive. Surely, CCL ex facie intended this term to be mandatory, yet the High Court held that the bank guarantee in a format not prescribed by it ought to be accepted since that requirement was a non- essential term of the GTC. From the point of view of CCL, the GTC has been impermissibly rewritten by the High Court.52. There is a wholesome principle that the courts have been following for a very long time and which was articulated in Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor, AIR 1936 PC 253  (2), namely:… where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way the thing must be done in that way or not at all. Other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden.There is no valid reason to give up this salutary principle or not to apply it mutatis mutandis to bid documents. This principle deserves to be applied in contractual disputes, particularly in commercial contracts or bids leading up to commercial contracts, where there is stiff competition. It must follow from the application of the principle laid down in Nazir Ahmad that if the employer prescribes a particular format of the bank guarantee to be furnished, then a bidder ought to submit the bank guarantee in that particular format only and not in any other format. However, as mentioned above, there is no inflexibility in this regard and an employer could deviate from the terms of the bid document but only within the parameters mentioned above.55. On the basis of the available case law, we are of the view that since CCL had not relaxed or deviated from the requirement of furnishing a bank guarantee in the prescribed format, insofar as the present appeals are concerned every bidder was obliged to adhere to the prescribed format of the bank guarantee. Consequently, the failure of JVC to furnish the bank guarantee in the prescribed format was sufficient reason for CCL to reject its bid.56. There is nothing to indicate that the process by which the decision was taken by CCL that the bank guarantee furnished by JVC ought to be rejected was flawed in any manner whatsoever. Similarly, there is nothing to indicate that the decision taken by CCL to reject the bank guarantee furnished by JVC and to adhere to the requirements of NIT and the GTC was arbitrary or unreasonable or perverse in any manner whatsoever.7.9 Thus, from the aforesaid decisions, it can be seen that a Court before interfering in a contract matter in exercise of powers of judicial review should pose to itself the following questions:-(i) Whether the process adopted or decision made by the authority is mala fide or intended to favour someone;or whether the process adopted or decision made is so arbitrary and irrational that the court can say: the decision is such that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could have reached? And(ii) Whether the public interest is affected? If the answers to the above questions are in negative, then there should be no interference under Article 226.7.10 Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand and when a conscious decision was taken by the JICC/JICA holding the Bid submitted by the original writ petitioner as non-responsive/non-compliant to the technical requirements of the Bidding Documents and suffering from material deviation, we are of the opinion that the High Court has erred in interfering with the tender process and interfering with the decision of the JICC/JICA rejecting the Bid submitted by the original writ petitioner at technical stage.8. At the outset, it is to be noted that the Bid submitted by the original writ petitioner was rejected at the first stage on the ground of material deviation/non-responsive and having found that the tender submitted by the original writ petitioner was not found to be as per the terms and conditions of the tender document. However, the High Court by the impugned judgment and order has set aside the conscious decision taken by the JICA, JICC and the appellant by observing that the Bid submitted by the original writ petitioner can be said to be in substantial compliance and on the ground that though the other Bidders were given opportunity to correct their errors/defects, however, the original writ petitioner was not afforded the same opportunity and therefore the decision not to give opportunity to correct the defects/errors can be said to be discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.However, it is required to be noted that a conscious decision was taken by JICC/JICA holding that the Bid submitted by the original writ petitioner suffers from material deviation and the same cannot be said to be a substantially responsive Technical Bid. The decision was taken by the employer – JICC/JICA and followed by the appellant considering the relevant clauses of the ITB, more particularly, ITB Clause 33.2, which defines a substantially responsive Technical Bid. The High Court ought to have appreciated that other Bidders, who were granted opportunity to cure the defects had cleared the first stage and they were granted opportunity to cure the defects as per ITB Clause 34. As per the JICC and JICA, with respect to those Bidders, who were given an opportunity to cure the defects after they cleared Stage I, their defects were found to be substantially responsive and, therefore, in exercise of the powers under Clause 34, the opportunity was given to them to cure the defects, which as such was found to be substantially responsive and non- material compliance. The High Court ought to have appreciated that so far as the original writ petitioner is concerned, its Bid was rejected at the first stage itself having specifically found that the same constitute a material deviation/non-conformity. Therefore, all the other Bidders who were granted the opportunity to cure the defects were different than that of the original writ petitioner and, therefore, the High Court has erred in holding that not granting the opportunity to the original writ petitioner to cure the defect is discriminatory.9. Even otherwise it is required to be noted that once a conscious decision was taken by the JICC and JICA, who can be said to be the author of the terms and conditions of the tender document, taking a view and stand that the Bid submitted by the original writ petitioner suffers from material deviation and the said decision was taken after considering the relevant clauses of the ITB, thereafter it was not open for the High Court to interfere with such a conscious decision in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and take a view that the Bid submitted by the original writ petitioner was in substantial compliance.10. As observed hereinabove, there are as such no allegations of mala fides and/or favouritism at all. Therefore, the High Court has erred in holding that the Bid submitted by the original writ petitioner was in substantial compliance. Whether the Bid submitted by a Bidder suffers from any material deviation and/or any substantial deviation should be left to the author of the Bid document and normally, the High Courts, in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, should not interfere with the same unless such a decision is found to be mala fide and/or there are allegations of favouritism and/or such a decision is arbitrary.11. In the present case, as observed hereinabove, the decision to reject the Bid of the original writ petitioner at the first stage on the ground that the Bid submitted by the original writ petitioner suffers from material deviation and the same cannot be said to be in substantial compliance has been taken by the tender committee in concurrence with JICC and JICA. The role of the JICA has been extensively dealt with by the Gujarat High Court in the decision referred to hereinabove. Therefore, when the JICA has agreed to fund such a huge amount and the terms and conditions of the tender document are finalized by the JICC/JICA, and, therefore, when conscious decision has been taken by the JICC/JICA, the same was not required to be interfered with by the High Court lightly and when such a decision of the High Court would have a cascading effect on such a foreign funded Mega project. The scope of judicial review in such foreign funded contract should be far much less than the ordinary Government funded contracts funded from Consolidated Fund of India. The scope of judicial review in such foreign funded contracts/projects would be restricted and minimal. In such foreign funded contracts, the only ground for judicial review ought to be on a limited aspect, i.e., the action of the executing authority does not suffer from favouritism or nepotism and based on the grounds which have been concealed from the foreign financing authority, if disclosed, would have persuaded the financing authority to cancel the contract.12. The High Court ought to have appreciated that the Bullet Train Project is a result of long-drawn deliberations between the Government of India on the one hand and the Government of Japan on the other. That thereafter a loan agreement came to be executed between the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) and Honble the President of India and the JICA agreed to fund approximately Rs.1 lakh crores for the project on the terms and conditions mentioned in the loan agreement and the other agreed terms including the terms and conditions of the Bid document shall be finalized by the JICA/JICC. The Bidding Documents are based on JICAs Standard Bidding Documents as well as based on JICAs procurement guidelines, which form an integral part of the loan agreement. Therefore, any decision contrary to the terms and conditions of the Bidding Document would be altering the terms and conditions of the loan agreement, which would not be permissible. JICA has a vital role to play in such contracts. It is to be noted that the foreign funded investment such as the present investment in the form of concessional Official Development Assistance (ODA) loan by the JICA are made on the basis of non-negotiated terms and conditions where the sole discretion as to what will be the conditions of investment and on what terms the contractors would be chosen to implement the project vests with the investor – foreign developed nation. The ultimate decision vests on the concerned parties, who financed/invested in the project, i.e., in the present case JICA. Therefore, the High Court has erred in interfering with the conscious decision taken by the JICA and the JICC, which has been acted upon by the tender committee.13. Under the circumstances, the High Court has erred in interfering with the conscious decision of the JICC / JICA / appellant / tender committee to reject the Bid submitted by the original writ petitioner at Stage I on the ground that the Bid submitted by the original writ petitioner was suffering from material deviation.14. Now so far as the view taken by the High Court in the impugned judgment and order that Clause 28 under Clause (e) of Option A Section 1 and Clause 42.5 of ITB are patently illegal, inasmuch as they seek to curtail the right of the bidders to challenge the rejection of their bid in a multi-stage bidding process at the earliest, and before the award of the contract is concerned, at the outset, it is required to be noted that as such the aforesaid clauses of the ITB were not under challenge before the High Court. Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that Clauses 28.1 and 42.5 of ITB were well within the knowledge of the original writ petitioner at the time of participating in the tender process. The aforesaid clauses of the ITB were put to the knowledge of all the participants/bidders and the same applied to all. Despite the above clauses in the ITB, original writ petitioner participated in the tender process. Therefore, once having accepted the terms and conditions of the tender process with the full knowledge of Clauses 28.1 and 42.5, and participated with full knowledge, thereafter, it was not open for the original writ petitioner to make a grievance with respect to such clauses.14.1 Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that Clauses 28.1 and 42.5 are part of the instructions to the Bidders (ITB) and, therefore, part of the Bidding Document. At this stage, it is required to be noted that loan agreement was materialized after a detailed Memorandum of Understanding and the loan agreement between the two Prime Ministers and how the project would be financed and operated. That thereafter followed by general consultancy of the project discussion, it was culminated into a loan agreement with the specific condition that the terms of the contract and the Bid document shall be finalised and prepared by JICC and approved by JICA. It appears that the contents of the Bidding Document are based on JICA Standard Bidding Documents as well as JICAs procurement guidelines and form an integral part of the loan agreement. It is to be noted that such foreign funded investments in the form of concessional Official Development Assistance (ODA) loan by JICA are made on the basis of non-negotiated terms and conditions, where the sole discretion as to what will be the terms and conditions of the tender and on what terms and conditions the project would be financed, vests with the investor foreign developed nation. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court on Clauses 28.1 and 42.5 would be altering the terms and conditions of the Bid Document / ITB, which as such were finalized and approved by the JICC/JICA and which were provided as per the JICAs international guidelines and which as such were to be complied with by all the bidders/participants.14.2 Even otherwise, the High Court has not at all appreciated the purpose of the aforesaid clauses. The aforesaid clauses stated that information relating to the evaluation of the Bids and recommendation of the Contract award, shall not be disclosed to Bidders or any other person, until information on Contract award is communicated to all the Bidders in accordance with ITB 42 and as per Clause 42.5 After notification of award, unsuccessful Bidders may request, in writing, to the Employer a debriefing seeking explanations on the grounds on which their Bids were not selected. It further provides that the Employer shall promptly respond, in writing, to any unsuccessful Bidders who, after the notification of the award in accordance with ITB 42.1, request a debriefing.14.3 The purpose of the aforesaid clauses appears to be to prevent a possible challenge to the multiple stage tender process midway. The High Court has construed that the said clauses would restrict the right of the bidders to seek judicial scrutiny of the tender process. However, the High Court does not seem to be wholly true. The High Court ought to have appreciated that first of all Clause 28 is a confidentiality clause. On general reading of the aforesaid two clauses, it can be said that it does not take away the right of the Bidders to seek judicial scrutiny at all. Only the stage and time to know the reasons and thereafter if the unsuccessful Bidder is aggrieved can seek the remedy, which is deferred till the final decision on award of contract is taken and communicated. As observed hereinabove, the object and purpose would be no interference in the tender process in between till the final decision to award the contract is taken. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that it takes away the right of the unsuccessful bidder to seek the judicial scrutiny of the tender process. After the final decision is taken to award the contract and the contract is awarded, thereafter it will always be open for the unsuccessful bidders to ask for the reasons to which the employer is required to furnish promptly and thereafter the unsuccessful bidder may avail the legal remedy, which may be available to it, may be claiming the damages. The High Court ought to have appreciated that it is always advisable that in such a foreign funded Mega project, delay may have a cascading effect and many a times have a financial burden due to delay in projects and therefore, there shall be minimal interference and/or no interference till the entire tender process or till the award of contract is completed. The foreign funded agency therefore is justified in providing such clauses to prevent challenge to the tender process midway. A foreign funded agency, who invests/funds such a huge amount for such a Mega project on bilateral talks between two countries is justified in insisting such clauses and to insist that the information relating to the evaluation of the Bids and recommendation of contract award shall not be disclosed to Bidders or any other person until information on contract award is communicated to all the Bidders and the grounds on which the unsuccessful Bidders Bids are not selected shall be provided thereafter.14.4 The object and purpose of providing aforesaid clauses is very clear namely no interference with respect to the tender process midway and till the final decision on awarding the contract is taken. Even, we are also of the opinion that in a Mega project, which is funded by a foreign country, there shall not be any interference with the tender process midway till the final decision is taken to award the contract. The reason behind this is that any delay in such a project may increase the ultimate project cost and it may affect the future investment by the foreign country, which would never be in the larger nations interest.14.5 Under the circumstances, the High Court has committed a grave error in holding that Clauses 28.1 and 42.5 are patently illegal, more particularly, in absence of any challenge to the same and also on the ground that once the original writ petitioner participated having knowledge of the aforesaid clauses in the ITB, thereafter it was not open for the original writ petitioner to challenge the same. The original writ petitioner was knowing right from the very beginning with respect to the confidentiality clause contained in Clause 28 and that grounds on which the Bids of unsuccessful Bidders are not selected shall be communicated only after a final decision to award the contract is communicated under Clause 42. If the original writ petitioner was aggrieved either it would not have participated and/or ought to have challenged such clauses before participating in the tender process. Under the circumstances, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court holding Clauses 28.1 and 42.5 as patently illegal cannot sustain and the same also deserves to be quashed and set aside.15. Before we part, we deem it proper to express few words of caution to the High Courts while entertaining the writ petitions challenging the tender process midway and/or while interfering with the tender process in the contracts, more particularly, with respect to the contracts/projects funded by the foreign countries and with respect to the Mega project like the present one. Before entertaining the writ petition with respect to such Mega projects funded by the foreign countries, one has to appreciate that funds of such Mega projects by the foreign country is followed by a detailed discussion between the Prime Ministers of both the countries and to strengthen bilateral cooperation in the rail sector. The foreign country is ready to invest/fund such a huge amount on non- negotiated terms and the Bid Documents are prepared by the foreign financial agency/country in accordance with the latest version of the Standard Bidding Documents. These investments from developed nations are made on the basis of non-negotiated terms and conditions, where the sole discretion as to what would be the conditions of the investments and on what terms the contractors would be chosen to implement the project, vests with the investor foreign developed nation. Considering the special peculiarities of such foreign sovereign funded development contracts, which can be envisaged and exist only due to the availability of the investment and willingness of the foreign sovereign country to finance such infrastructure project, the said contracts assume the different characteristics. Therefore, there shall be different considerations so far as the judicial interference is concerned between the foreign funded contracts and the ordinary public works contracts funded from public exchequer. It is always to be borne in mind and as observed by this Court in the case of Asia Foundation and Construction Ltd. (supra), it is difficult for a developing country to go ahead with such a high cost project unless the developed country grant loan/subsidy and/or ready to fund such high cost projects, which are very important projects for developing country, more particularly, when the developed country is ready to fund a huge amount at a minimal concessional rate of interest and on suitable terms and conditions of repayment. It is also to be noted that any delay in execution of such a Mega project, which is very important project for the developing country like India may not be in the larger public interest and in the nations interest. Such an interference by the Courts midway and delay in the projects like these which is funded by the foreign countries on bilateral mutual understanding/agreement by the developed country to a developing country may affect the future investments/funding. Many a times, such a delay in the execution of the project due to the intervention by the Courts may have cascading effect on the project cost and ultimately may increase the project cost and may impose heavy financial burden and lead to increased and unbudgeted expenditure. Therefore, while exercising the writ jurisdiction challenging the tender process midway and/or while entertaining the writ petition challenging the award of contract with respect to such Mega projects, more particularly, when such Mega projects are funded by the foreign countries, the Courts have to bear in mind the following principles laid down by this Court in the case of Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India, 1994 6 SCC 651  in paragraph 94 as under:94. The principles deducible from the above are:(1) The modern trend points to judicial restraint in administrative action.(2) The court does not sit as a court of appeal but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made.(3) The court does not have the expertise to correct the administrative decision. If a review of the administrative decision is permitted it will be substituting its own decision, without the necessary expertise which itself may be fallible.(4) The terms of the invitation to tender cannot be open to judicial scrutiny because the invitation to tender is in the realm of contract. Normally speaking, the decision to accept the tender or award the contract is reached by process of negotiations through several tiers. More often than not, such decisions are made qualitatively by experts.(5) The Government must have freedom of contract. In other words, a fair play in the joints is a necessary concomitant for an administrative body functioning in an administrative sphere or quasi-administrative sphere. However, the decision must not only be tested by the application of Wednesbury principle of reasonableness (including its other facts pointed out above) but must be free from arbitrariness not affected by bias or actuated by mala fides.(6) Quashing decisions may impose heavy administrative burden on the administration and lead to increased and unbudgeted expenditure.Based on these principles we will examine the facts of this case since they commend to us as the correct principles.Even while entertaining the writ petition and/or granting the stay which ultimately may delay the execution of the Mega projects, it must be remembered that it may seriously impede the execution of the projects of public importance and disables the State and/or its agencies/instrumentalities from discharging the constitutional and legal obligation towards the citizens. Therefore, the High Courts should be extremely careful and circumspect in exercise of its discretion while entertaining such petitions and/or while granting stay in such matters. Even in a case where the High Court is of the prima facie opinion that the decision is as such perverse and/or arbitrary and/or suffers from mala fides and/or favouritism, while entertaining such writ petition and/or pass any appropriate interim order, High Court may put to the writ petitioners notice that in case the petitioner loses and there is a delay in execution of the project due to such proceedings initiated by him/it, he/they may be saddled with the damages caused for delay in execution of such projects, which may be due to such frivolous litigations initiated by him/it. With these words of caution and advise, we rest the matter there and leave it to the wisdom of the concerned Court(s), which ultimately may look to the larger public interest and the national interest involved.