Holding

The university was justified in rejecting the late submission and the High Court erred in setting aside the award; the appeal is allowed.

Summary

The Gujarat Agricultural University issued a tender for a veterinary college building, requiring pre‑qualification documents by 27 Nov 2008 and price bids by 28 Nov 2008. Three firms bid; one was disqualified for lack of experience and the appellant, Sorath Builders, submitted the lowest bid. Respondent No. 1, Shreejikrupa Buildcon, submitted its pre‑qualification documents on 1 Dec 2008, three days late, and its bid was not opened. The respondent filed a writ petition alleging the time limit was arbitrary and that the university should re‑tender to save public money. The High Court quashed the award, directing a fresh tender. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the time limit was reasonable, the university was entitled to reject the late submission, and the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by interfering with the tender process. Consequently, the award to the appellant was upheld and the appeal allowed.

Issues considered

The adequacy and reasonableness of the time limit for submission of pre‑qualification documents in the tender notice.
Whether the university was justified in rejecting a bid submitted after the stipulated deadline.
Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to set aside the award of the contract and direct a fresh tender.
The applicability of the principle that the contract should be awarded to the lowest compliant bidder versus alleged savings from considering a higher bid.

Subjects

tenderpre‑qualification documentstime limitarbitrarinesspublic procurementcontract awardadministrative lawurgencypublic moneyre‑tendering

Judgment

[2009] 2 S.C.R. 893

..... ~
MIS. SORATH BUILDERS A
V.
SHREEJIKRUPA BUILDGON LIMITED & ANR.
Civil Appeal No. 1127 of 2009
FEBRUARY 20, 2009
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
SHARMA, JJ.]

"' Tender: Notice of tender for construction of Veterinary
Construction Building - Requiring submission of documents
within 6 days - Non-acceptance of bid sent three days after c
the last date of receiving the documents - Bid of lowest bidder
sending documents in time accepted - Quashing of, sought
on ground of insufficiency of time for submitting tender papers
-Justification-Held: Not justified, as no prejudice was caused
to anyone due to time schedule provided by University - Plea D
of unsuccessful bidder that he could not submit documents in
time as he was undertaking various construction work and that
he came to know about tender only on last day cannot be
accepted as /apse was due to his own fault - There was no
arbitrariness in decision of University in accepting bid of E
successful bidder as it was lowest, reasonable and valid - Plea
of fresh tender process on ground of saving of public money,
not tenable as delay in avoiding contract would only mean
increase in cost of construction.
Administrative Jaw: Interference with tender selection F
process by High Court - Scope of
A tender notice was issued by the Respondent 2-
University on 21.11.2008 inviting tenders for construction
of Veterinary College Building. The tender notice was
G
widely advertised in the largest local daily and also
published on the internet. The notice required the bidders
to send the pre-qualification documents by 27 .11.2008
and 'online' submission of price bid by 28.11.2008.
893 H
894 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S. C.R.

A Three bids were received out of which one did not .., ,.;;
fulfil the requisite criteria. Out of the remaining two, the
bid of appellant was the lowest. Since the bid of
respondent 1 was sent on 1.12.2008 i.e. three days after
the last date of receiving these documents by the
B University, the bid of respondent 1 was not opened and
was not taken into consideration.
Respondent 1 filed a writ petition before the High
Court praying for quashing the decision of respo.ndent 2-
University by considering the respondent 1 as disqualified
C from participating in the tender selection process.
. -

. -~ The 1:1!9h Court held that the University acted
arbitrarily in requiring the pre-qualification document$ to
be sent p~ysic~lly so as to reach the University by'.Speed
Post by· 27:11.2'008, inasni'uch as it meant ttiat the
D contractor -had to send pre-qualification ·documents by
the'~ aforesaid ~ode by dispatching 'the. same latest by
25 . _11.200~. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed
and the decision o·f the respondent no. 2 - University
accepting the .bid of the appellant was quashed and set
E aside With.a further direction to the University to issue·a
·fresh tender notice with the same terms and conditions
but also provide seven days time for submitting the pre-
q u a I ifi cation documents after the end date for
downloading the bid documents. Aggrieved appellant filed
·F the present appeal.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1. So far as the issue with regard to
stipulation that pre-qualification documents to be sent
G latest by 27.11.2008 for the estimated contract value ·of
Rs. 8.40 crores, was concerned, three parties applied and
submitted their tenders and on scrutiny it was found that
one out of the three did not satisfy the requirements, and
therefore, his ·tender was rightly rejected by the parties.
H So far as the tenders of the appellant and respondent no.
M/S. SORATH BUILDERS V. SHREEJIKRUPA 895
BUILDCON LIMITED & ANR.
~ ~ 1 were concerned, on going through the record it is found A
that the respondent no. 1 never specifically raised the
issue regarding paucity and shortage of time as one of
the grounds for challenging the decision of the University. ·
The only stand that was taken by respondent no. 1 for
late submission of his pre-qualification documents was B:
that he came to know about the tenders only on 27 .11.2008
as he was undertaking various construction works, and
+- therefore, could not submit all the required pre-qualifica-
tion documents in time stipulated in the notice inviti~g
tenders. Such a stand makes it crystal clear that respondent c
no. 1 was prevented in submitting the required documents
in time due to his personal difficulty and not for the time
schedule attached to the notice inviting tenders. That was
also not one of his grounds taken specifically in the writ
..t: petition at any stage. [Para 9] [901-E; 902-A]
D
1.2. No other intending bidder came to the court on
any such plea that they were deprived of an opportunity
of submitting their tender due to paucity of time and that
any prejudice is caused to anyone due to time schedule
provided by the University. Only during the hearing stage, E
such a plea was raised which found favour with the High
Court. The advertisement was issued on 21.11.2008
}. requiring the parties to submit their pre-qualification
documents only by 27.11.2008. Therefore, sufficient time
was provided to submit tender papers. The University also F
permitted pre-qualification documents to be submitted "On
Line". Therefore, the contention that the time was too short
for submission of pre-qualification documents by
27 .11.2008 was without any merit. [Para 9] [902-C]
2.1. The tender submitted by the appellant was the G
•. lowest and the same was accepted as the same was found
to be reasonable, tenable, plausible and valid. The High
Court went beyond its jurisdiction in setting aside the
~ decision of the University in accepting the bid of the
appellant. There is no fault or arbitrariness in the decision H
896 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R.

A making process of the University. The said decision
cannot be said to be in any manner arbitrary or
u'nreasonable. iThe respondent no .. 1 submitted his pre-
quatification documents late for which he is only to be
blamed. The University has taken a specific stand that the
B price settled for the tender is neither unreasonable nor '
!-
excessive in comparison with the project. The main
interest of the University is to get a good quality Veterinary
College within the stipulated time because the grant out
of which the payment of construction of the college is to
be made would lapse on 31st March, 2009 and that the
C University has already started the process of admission
to the batch of students for the coming academic year.
Con~equently a time bound complet.ion of a good quality
Veterinary College became a necessity. [Para 1O] [902-F;.
903-A]
D
·2.2. There is definitely urgency in the said project,
' ...
and therefore, the process of awarding the contract of
construction should be expedited and the same should
not be stalled in between. The project is time bound and
money must be utilized by 31st March, 2009. The process
E of re-tendering and allotment of fresh tender would mean
delay and would also be time consuming. [Para 11] [903-C]
!-
Puravankara Projects Ltd. vs. Hotel Venus International and -l
Others (2007) 10 SCC 33, Raunaq International Ltd. vs. I. VR.
F Construction Ltd. and Others (1999) 1 SCC 492 - relied on.
2.3. The prime consideration on which the High Court
set aside the award of contract in favour of the appellant
is that if the bid of respondent no. 1 was considered in
the tender process there would have been saving of public
G money. However, that would not in any manner justify in
going through once again the same tender process, which
is always time consuming. Any delay in awarding the
contract would only mean increase in the cost of
expenditure for cost of construction would go up with the
H passage of time.[Para 13] [905-D].

( __
M/S. SORATH BUILDERS V. SHREEJIKRUPA 897
BUILDCON LIMITED & ANR

, r WB. State Electricity Board v. Patel Engineering Co. Ltd. A
and Others (2001) 2 sec 451 - relied on.
3. The respondent no. 1 was negligent and was not
sincere in submitting his pre-qualification documents
within the time schedule laid down despite the fact that
he had information that there is a time schedule attached 8
to the notice inviting tenders. Despite being aware of the
said stipulation he did not submit the required documents
within the stipulated date. Pre-qualification documents
were received by the respondent no. 2 - University only
after time schedule was over. The terms and conditions C
of the tender as held by the Supreme Court are required
to be adhered to strictly, and therefore, the respondent
no. 2 - University was justified in not opening the tender
submitted by respondent no. 1 on 01.12.2008, which was
late by three days. No grievance could also be made by D
the respondent no. 1 as lapse was due to his own fault.
The High Court proceeded to interfere with the entire
process as if acting as an appellate authority over the
decision of the University which was beyond the
jurisdiction of the Court. The High Court was not justified E
in accepting the contentions of respondent no. 1 and
'
'
thereby upsetting the entire process of inviting tenders
by interfering with the terms and conditions of inviting
I
the tenders and by rescheduling and directing the process
r of re-tendering, which would only cause further delay and F·
would increase the burden on the exchequer of the
University. [Para 15] [906-C]
Case Law Reference
(2007) 1o sec 33 relied on· Para 12
G
(1999) 1 sec 492 relied on Para 12
(2001) 2 sec 451 relied on Para 14
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No 1127
of 2009 H
898 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R.

A From the Judgement and Order dated 29.12.2008 of the
Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Special Civi.1
Application 14592 of 2008.
, ~ r •,, ~ • -

· D,A. Dave, Nikhil Goel, Shajid Marzook Bufaki, Sheela_
Goel, for. the Appellants. ". ·
B_ ...
Sanjay R. Hegde, Pu net Jain, Bharat T Rao, Archna Ttwari,
Pratibha Jain, for the Respondent.
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by
c DR. IVIUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J ..
· 1 .. Leave Granted.
. . .

· 2: In the· present appeal what is under consideration is the
construction ofVeterinary_College building at NavsariAgricultural
University, Gujarat (hereinafter referred to as "University"). Since.
0
construction of the aforesaid building iias required to be done
immediately, University released the grant which was going to
lapse on• 31.03:.2009. The University is~·ued a Tender Notice
No. 20/2008-09 on 21.11.2008 inviting tenders for construction
E of Veterinary College building at Navsari Agricultural University,
Gujarat. The tender notice was widely advertised through
publication in newspaper "Sandesh", b~ing the largest_ local (f aily
iri the State ofGujarat. The tender nqtice was also publjsh~~ on.
the internet. Thepotic!3 inviting tenders required the following' .1

from the bidders: ·
F, •
a) Pre qualification •documents had to be sent t5y
27 .11.2008, failing which the tender would be liable
for rejection and will not be opened;
i) "AA" Class certificate with minimum 80% of
G the project cost turnover audited in the last
financial year 2007-08;
ii) Bidding capacity value should be more than
project cost;
H iii) II Building category registration and above.
M/S. SORATH BUILDERS V. SHREEJIKRUPA BUILDCON 899
LIMITED & ANR. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
'{ All the above documents have to be readily A
available with any builder. having continuous
work for different authorities.
b) Last date of "On Line" submitting of "Price bid" was
28.11.2008.
B
c) Tender fees, Earnest Money Deposit (EMO) and
other documents can be submitted by 04.12.2008.
+ 3. Pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement three bids were
received by the University out of which one was disqualified at
the threshold for not having the requisite experience. Out of the c

• remaining two, the bid of the appellant - M/s. Sorath Builders
was the lowest. One of the terms and conditions of the bid was
that pre-qualification documents were required to be sent by
27 .11.2008. Since the bid of respondent no. 1, Shreejikrupa
Buildcon Limited was sent on 01.12.2008 i.e. three days after D
the last date of receiving these documents by the University the
bid of respondent no. 1 could not have been opened as it was
received beyond the time stipulated and accordingly it was not
taken into consideration.
4. The University considered the following stipulation in E
the tender:
"Late date of "On Line" submission of price bid is dated
28/11/2008 upto 18.00 hrs. All documents, tender fees,
registration, bank solvency, bank guarantee and EMO etc. F
duly scan along with the tender documents should be
-f submitted "On Line". Last date for submission of pre-
qualification documents by R.P.A.D./Speed Post is 27/
11 /2008. Any violation in the above instructions, the tender
will be liable for rejection and will not be opened".
G
~ In terms of and in accordance with the mandate. of the
tender notice the tender of respondent no. 1 - Shreejikrupa
Buildcon Limited was not opened. Being so $itua':::t·l, P.E'
respondent no. 1 filed a writ petition before the High Court
. of Gu}arat praying for quashing the decision of respondent H
~
~
900 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R.
•1

A no. 2 - University dated 8.12.2008 considering the ~~
"!
respondent no. 1 as disqualified from participating in the t
tender selection process for the construction of Veterinary I

College building at Navsari Agricultural University, Gujarat.
5. The said writ petition was placed before the Division
r
B Bench and after looking into the records and after hearing the
.::+
1
parties the Division Bench held that the University acted (' .·
arbitrarily in requiring the pre qualification documents to be sent
· physically so as to reach the University by R.P.A.D./Speed Post .
by 27. 11.2008, inasmuch as it meant that the contractor had to
c send pre qualification documents by the aforesaid mode by
dispatching the same latest by 25.11.2008. Consequently, the
writ petition was allowed and the decision· of the respondent
no. 2 - University dated 10.12.2008 accepting the bid of the
appellant was quashed and set aside with a further direction
•
i
D that the University shall issue a fresh tender notice with the same ). ~
terms and conditions but it would also provide seven days time !·
for submitting the pre qualification documents after the end date
for downloading the bid documents. t
~
6. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid Judgment and Order
E the present appeal was filed in which several contentions were ,.......
raised on behalf of the parties .
• \
7. It is the case of the appellant before us that the High
.i
Court has wrongly set aside a settled contract pursuant to the
)
F tender issued by respondent no. 2 - University on the ground ,,
that the terms of the tender were arbitrary. It was also argued
that the High Court has not only interfered with the terms and
r
~
conditions of the tender but has written the terms of the tender ~·

G
itself by directing the University to issue a fresh tender on the
terms and conditions suggested in the said order. It was also
submitted that jurisdiction of the writ court to interfere in the terms
r ,,

of a contract is very limited and that even if two '7iews are possible i

and the authorities granting tender takes a particular view, the
courts should not interfere. It was also submitted by the counsel
appearing for the appellant that the time period which was
.,.'I
H
\--
~

lo
~
\
M/S. SORATH BUILDERS V. SHREEJIKRUPA BUILDCON 901
LIMITED & ANR. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

granted by the University cannot be said to be too short for it A
was possible for the respondent no. 1 to submit the bid after
satisfying all the requirements. It was also pointed o. t that the
respondent came to know about the tenders only on 27 .11.2008
as he was undertaking various construction works, and therefore
could not submit the required pre qualification documents in B
time within the stipulated date. It was also submitted that so
placed and situated, the respondent no. 1 was not entitled to
+·
and competent to take up a plea that he did not receive sufficient
time to submit the pre qualification documents.
8. The case of respondent no. 1 on the other hand was C
that by providing arbitrary time limit to submit pre qualification
documents the University tried to shut out competition and
permitted only two eligible parties to enter the fray. It was also
submitted that the price bid offered by respondent no. 1 was
much lower than the appellant, being only 6.38% above the D
estimated contract value while bid offer of appellant was 21.21 %
above the estimated contract value, which would mean that the
University would be unnecessarily spending public money to
the tune of more than Rs. 1 crore.
·E
9. We have carefully considered the aforesaid
submissions of the counsel appearing for the parties. So far as
the issue with regard to stipulation that pre qualification
documents to be sent latest by 27 .11.2008 for the estimated
contract value of Rs. 8.40 crores, is concerned, three parties
applied and submitted their tenders and on scrutiny it was found F
that one out of the three did not satisfy the requirements, and
therefore, his tender was rightly rejected by the parties. So far
as the tenders of the appellant and respondent no. 1 are
concerned, on going through the record we find that the
respondent no. 1 never specifically raised the issue regarding G
paucity and shortage of time as one of the grounds for
challenging the decision of the University. The only stand that
was taken by respondent no. 1 for late submission of his pre
qualification documents is that he came to know about the
tenders only on 27.11.2008 as he was undertaking various H
902 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R.

-'l'
A construction works, and therefore, coulq not ~ubmit all the
required pre qualification documents in time stipulated in the
-notice inviting tenders. The aforesaid stand makes it crystal clear
that·respondent no. 1 was prevented in submitting the required
documents in time due to his personal difficulty and not for the
B time schedule attached to the notice inviting tenders. That was
also not one of his grounds taken specifically in the writ petition
at any stage. But only during the course of hearing ·such a
contention seems to have been raised which found favour with +
the High Court. No other intending bidder came to the cou·rt on •
c any such plea that they were deprived of an opportunity of
submitting their tender due to paucity of time and that any
prejudice is caused to anyone due to time schedule provided
by the University. It appears that only during the hearing stage a
plea was raised which found favour with the High Court but as
stated ~bove the -aforesaid plea is without any merit for the
D
advertiseme11t_was issued on 21.11.2008-requiring the parties
to submit their pre qualification documents only by 27.11.2008.
Therefore, sufficient time was provided to submit tender papers.
The Ur;iiversity also permitted pre qualification documents to
be submitted "On Line". Therefore, the contention that the time
E was too short for submission of pre qualification documents by
27 .11.2008 is without any merit.
- 1---

. 10. We also find on record that the tender submitted by ~ \--
th~ appellant was the lowest (lnd the same was accepted as
F the same was found to be reasonable, tenable, plausible and
valid. The High Courtwent beyond its jurisdiction in setting.aside
the decision of the University in accepting the bid of the appellant.
We are of the opinion that there is no fault or.arbitrariness·in the
decision making process of the University. The said. decision
cannot be said to be in any manner arbitrary or unreasonable.
G
The respondent no. 1 submitted his pre qualification documents
late for which he is only to be blamed. The University has taken
a specific stand before us that the price settled for the tender is
neither unreasonable nor excessive in comparison with the
project. It was also stated before us that the main interest of the
H
M/S. SORATH BUILDERS V. SHREEJIKRUPA BUILDCON 903
LIMITED & ANR. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

University is to get a good quality Veterinary College within the A
stipulated time because the grant out of which the payment of
construction of the college is to be made would lapse on 31st
March, 2009 and that the University has alreadye started the
process of admission to the batch of students for the coming
academic year. Consequently we feel that a time bound B
completion of a good quality Veterinary College has become a
necessity.
11. We are of the considered opinion that there is definitely
urgency in the aforesaid project, and therefore, the process of
awarding the contract of construction should be expedited and C
the same should not be stalled in between. The process which
is suggested by the High Court in its Judgment and Order if
allowed to be gone through the same would mean prolonged
delay in the completion of the project. The project is time bound
and money must be utilized by 31st March, 2009. The process D
of re-tendering and allotment of fresh tender would mean delay
and would also be time consuming.
12. The Supreme Court in number of decisions has held
that there is a vital distinction between administrative and
contractual law. In Puravankara Projects Ltd. vs. Hotel Venus E
International and Others, reported in (2007) 10 SCC 33, in
which one of us, namely, Justice Arijit Pasayat was a party, it
was held as follows:
"tender terms are contractual and it is the privilege of the F
Government which invites its tenders and courts do not
have jurisdiction to judge as to how the tender terms should
be framed. By observing that the~e was an implied term
which was not there in the tender, and postponing the time
by which the bank guarantee had to be furnished, in G
essence the High Court directed modification of a vital
term of the contract".
It further held that
"the statutory parameters have to be kept in view and the H
904 SUPREM~
. ,_..._,COURT REPORTS , [?Q0.9] 2 S.C.R.
, '\: '-"

r r. ,-,r.t ·,, . . ·w '3rr1';- f
A
•
High Court can never alter or amend a contract entered '
into between the parties".
In Raunaq International Ltd. vs.
I. V.R. Construction
Ltd. and Others, reported in (1999) 1 SCC 492, this Court had
occasion to dispose of a case of paramount importance of
B Government contract. In the said decision this Court has
observed as follows:
"where rational non-discriminatory norms have been laid ~

down for granting of tenders, a departure from such norms \=
can only be made on valid principles. The award of contract
c cannot be by stopping the performance of the contract so :
I
awarded, there is a major. detriment to the public because )

the construction of two t~ermal power units is held up on
account of the dispute".
:-·
The court further held:
D
"the award of a contract, whether it by a private party or by
a public body or the State, is essentially a commercial
· transaction. In arriving at a commerc!al decision,
considerations which are of paramount importance are ,.'-
E commercial considerations, and the same would be:
(1) The price at which the other side is willing to do the work;
(2) Whether the goods or services offered are of the .l
..~
~
'
requisite specifications;
F (3) Whether the person tendering has the ability to deliver
the goods or services as per specifications. When large
works contracts involving engagement of substantial
manpower or requiring specific skills are to be offered,
the financial ability of the tenderer to fulfil the requirements
G of the job is also important;
;..

(4)Jhe ability of the tenderer to deliver goods or services
or to do the work of the requisite standard and quality;
(5) Past experience of the tenderer and whether he has
•.
successfully completed similar work earlier;
H
M/S. SORATH BUILDERS V. SHREEJIKRUPA BUILDCON 905
LIMITED & ANR. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

~
(6) Time which will be taken to deliver the goods or services; A
and oflffn' · .. · ·'

(7) The ability of the tenderer to take follow-up action,
rectify defects or to give post-contract services".
It was also held in the said decision: B
"the public would also be interested in the quality of the
work undertaken or goods supplied by the tenderer for
poor quality of goods can lead to tremendous public
hardship and substantial financial outlay either in correcting
mistakes or in rectifying defects or even at times in re- c
doing the entire work - thus involving larger outlays of
public money and delaying the availability of services,
facilities or goods".
13. The prime consideration on which the High Court set
aside the award of contract in favour of the appellant is that if D
the bid of respondent no. 1 was considered in the tender
process there would have been saving of public money.
However, that would not in any manner justify in going through
once again the same tender process, which is always time
consuming. Any delay in awarding the contract would only mean E
increase in the cost of expenditure for cost of construction would
Iii go up with the passage of time.

~- 14. In W.B. State Electricity Board vs. Patel Engineering
Co. Ltd. and Others, reported in (2001) 2 SCC 451, this Court
while considering the issue with regard to the process of tender held: F
"where bidders who fulfil prequalification alone are invited
to bid, adherence to the instructions cannot be given a go-
by by branding it as a pedantic approach, otherwise it will
encourage and provide scope for discrimination,
arbitrariness and favouritism which are totally opposed to G
~ ~ the rule of law and constitutional values".
It was also held:
t "the very purpose of issuing rules/instructions is to ensure
their enforcement lest the rule of law should be a casualty". H
906 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R.

A It was further held:
"the contract is awarded, normally, to the lowest tenderer
which is in public interest and that it is equally in public
interest to adhere to the 'rules and conditions subject to
which bids are invited".
B
15. Following the aforesaid legal principles laid. down by
this Court, we are of the considered opinion that the respondent
no. 1 was negligent.and was not sincere in submitting his pre
qualification documents within the time schedule laid down
C despit~ the fact that he h~d information that there is a tirne
schedule attached to the notice inviting tenders. Despite being
aware; of the said stipulation he did not submit the required
documents within the stipulated date. Pre-qualification
documents were received by the respondent no. 2 - University
only after time schedule was over. The terms and conditions of
D the ·fender as held by the Supreme Court are required to be
adhered to strictly, and· therefore, the respondent no. 2 -
University was justified in not opening the tender submitted by
respont:lent no. 1 on 01.12.2008, which was late by three days.
According to us no grievance could also be made by the
E respondent no. 1 as lapse was due to his own fault. The High
Court proceeded to interfere with the entire process as if acting
as an appellate authority over the decision of the L)niversitywhich
was beyond the jurisdiction of the Court. The High Court was
not justified in accepting the contentions of respondent no. 1
F and thereby upsetting the entire process of inviti!lg tenders by ·
interfering with the terms and conditions of inviting the tenders
and by rescheduling and directing the process of re-tendering,
which would only cause further delay and would increase the
buta)3.n on the exchequer of the University.
' ~

G 16. In that view of the matter, we set aside the Judgment
and Order of the High Court and upheld the decision of the
I
University in awarding the contract in favour of appellant. \
1ccordingly, the appeal stands allowed.

l.G. Appe::>' a·llowed.