Union of India & Ors. Mr. Anujit Mookhjerji Mr. Prithish Chandra Ms. Sreeja Mukherjee ... for the petitioner. Mr. Aniruddha Bagchi Mr. Pradip Kumar Kundu ... for the respondents. 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ application challenging the communication dated January 16, 2024 wherein it is intimated to the petitioner that the offer of the petitioner is not considered by the authority for non submission of the EMD. 2. The respondent no. 2 has published the tender on September 26, 2025 for supply, installation and commissioning of IP based Video Surveillance System (VSS) in LHB coaches with four cameras as per RDSO Specification No. RDSO/SPN/TC/106/2025, version 3.1 or latest including Rugged Hand Held Terminal (HHT)/Tablet along with 8 TB external SSD. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has participated in the said tender with respect of Serial No. 1 (E) of the tender document which reads as follows: "1(E) System Integrator who shall submit tender specific authorization for Camera, Software of MNVR (Mobile network video recorder) & MNVR from OEMs of camera, Software of MNVR and MNVR. Tenderer has to submit STQC approval of 2 camera and software of MNVR from OEM who possess STQC approval on or before tender opening date as per the requirement of RDSO Specification No. RDSO/SPN/TC/106/2025, Ver. 3.1 of OEMs along with bid document." 4. After receipt of the tender document, the respondent authorities have proceeded with the tender process and opening of the technical bid on January 13, 2026 it was found that that the petitioner is qualified for opening of the financial bid in bulk category as nonMSE, ClassI local supplier. On opening of the financial bid, it was found that the petitioner is the L3. The main issue raised by the petitioner in the present application is that the respondents have proceeded for opening of technical bid and financial bid and subsequently, the respondents have issued the impugned letter dated January 16, 2026 by not considering the offer of the petitioner which is not permissible in law. 5. He submits that the petitioner is a MSME and as such, the petitioner is not liable to deposit the EMD and, accordingly, the petitioner has not deposited the EMD but the respondent authorities have not considered the offer of the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment in the case of The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax1, Kolkata Vs. M/s. Jeevan Diesels & Electricals reported in 2018 SCC Online Cal 3201 and submits that the Division Bench of this Court has held that the assembling of different products which are giving rise to a new product and which has become a new name 3 in the market and function will be regarded as "manufacturing activity". He further relied upon the judgment in the case of Candela Engineering Corporation Vs. Corporation of Trissur reported in 2020 SCC Online Ker 12075 and submits that procurement of goods may include certain small work or some services, which are incidental or consequential to the supply of such goods, such as transportation, insurance, installation, commissioning, training and maintenance. 7. The petitioner relied upon these judgments submits that the petitioner is running the business under the name and style M/s. Panorama Electronics Pvt. Ltd. He further submits that as per the other tender conditions, the tenderers who are participating as authorized dealers of the trader and meeting eligibility criteria as mentioned at Clause (E) of Condition for Eligibili