1. Special leave granted. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and have also considered the terms and conditions embodied in the Tender Form in accordance with which tenders were invited from the parties to give their offers for lease of the right of the collection of the toll of ferry at Rajapur in District Banda. It also appears from the tender notice that the tenders had to be submitted by August 25, 1987 and those tenders were to be opened at 3.30 p.m. on the said date by the Superintendent of Works DCU PWD Karwi or by his authorised representative at his office of Karwi. The tender consists of two parts. Part I includes actual tender i.e. tender form and bill of quantity. It will indicate tender amount offered by the contractor (tender). This will be kept in a sealed envelope by the tenderer bearing his name and address indicating that it is Part I. Part II comprises among others the following conditions

"(ii) The tenderer has to submit solvency certificate of Collector. The tender will be opened of those whole status will be of more that 4 lakhs. Detailed particulars of property should be furnished in solvency certificate. The security will remain with the department as mortgaged during the period of contract

(viii) The tenderer will have to submit good character certificate of the Collector, where the resides. This certificate should not be before May 25, 1987. All the certificates attached with tender should not be more than three months."

At the end of the said tender form in Part II, it has been mentioned specifically

"Part I of the tender will be opened when all the conditions of Part II and tender have been completed with, if this is not so, Part I will not be disclosed."

It is also to be noted in this connection that in clause 7 of Part I of the Tender Form, it has been mentioned that the tender shall remain open for acceptance for a period of nine months from the date of opening of the tenders. On a close scrutiny of the conditions contained in the Tender Form, it is evident that all these terms and conditions embodied in the tender notice are to be complied with and non-compliance of any of these terms may lead to non-acceptance of the tender filed by any tenderer. In the instant case, Tender Forms were undoubtedly filed by the appellant as well as by the respondent 4 as and also other tenderers. The tender of respondent 4 was accepted and the tender of the appellant was not opened by the Commissioner on the ground that he has not complied with conditions (ii) and (viii) of Part II, that is, he has not submitted the solvency certificate from the Collector and also the relevant character certificate as mandatorily required under the said tender conditions. It has been urged before us by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that his client submitted the certificates which are, of course, more than three months old and he further submitted that he applied before the Tehsildar for renewal and or issuance of solvency certificate. The Tehsildar recommended the same and forwarded the same to the Collector and the Collector granted those certificates some time on August 28, 1981 and the certificates were filed after receipt of the same on September 2, 1987. The Commissioner decided upon the tenders on November 2, 1987. As such it has been urged before us that at the time when the Commissioner considered the tenders the certificate was already there. So, it is a mere technical defect and in the fitness of things, the Commissioner should have considered this certificate and should have decided in favour of the appellant. Since the amount offered by the appellant in his tender form is higher than the amount offered by respondent 4

2. We have considered these submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and we have also considered the terms and conditions of the tender notice. It is quite clear that the tender form that was submitted by the appellant did not fulfil all the requirements of the tender notice, that is, the solvency certificate which was filed was more than three months old and the new solvency certificate duly granted by the Collector was not filed within the time specified in the tender notice, that is, on August 25, 1987. But it was filed much later on September 2, 1987.

3. The Commissioner has already considered the validity of the tender filed by the appellant in accordance with the direction made by the High Court pursuant to the order made in Writ Petition No. 206 of 1987 and the Commissioner by his order dated May 10, 1988 has held that the appellant did not comply with this mandatory condition, namely, filing of solvency certificate within the last date of submission of the tender as well as character certificate and so the Commissioner did not open the tender form submitted by the appellant on this ground. We do not want to interfere with this order in an application under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

4. Furthermore, learned counsel, Mr. Jain, for respondent 4 states before us that his client is ready and willing to pay a sum of Rs. 2, 41, 000 per annum for leasing out this particular ferry. The appellant will file an undertaking through his counsel, Mr. P. K. Jain within two weeks from today to this effect.

5. The appeal is thus dismissed. There will be, however, no order as to costs in the special facts and circumstances of the case.