“43. Our understanding of the law, drawing guidance from the decisions noticed above, is that the terms and conditions of a tender are not to be read and interpreted in the same manner a statute is read and interpreted. The legislatures make laws actuated with some policy to curb public evil or to effectuate public good. As and when an issue arises before them, it is the duty of the constitutional courts to interpret the law and declare what the law is. If the Courts find gaps in the working of the law while interpreting and declaring what the law is, it is not precluded from ironing out the creases by appropriate technique of interpretation to infuse life into the law; but it is impermissible for the Courts to alter the material of which the law is woven. Such ironing out of the creases, inter alia, is generally premised on the Court's perception of what the legislative intent was. In so doing, the Courts are entitled to interpret and declare the law without consulting the legislature to explain what was intended while enacting the law. Legislative functions come to an end once the law is passed. When the constitutionality of a law is challenged or when the Court is otherwise required to interpret and declare what the law is, the parties opposing/supporting the law are only heard. However, in regard to interpretation of tender terms and conditions, the perspective is completely different and such an exercise, as can be taken recourse to in interpreting a statute, would be impermissible. Terms and conditions in a tender are set which would advance the tendering authority's interest. When the terms and conditions of a tender fall for consideration and the need arises for the Court to understand what is meant by a particular clause or what is the requirement of a particular clause in such tender, the tendering authority's version has to be heard by the Court. If such version of what it intended by inserting the relevant clause appears to the Court not to be manifestly unfair, utterly unreasonable, totally arbitrary, or thoroughly unjust, the Court cannot substitute its view of what would have been a better course for the tendering authority to follow to achieve the object of the tender. Deference to the view of the tendering authority by the Courts is the general rule. The adverbs in the preceding sentence would signify a level higher than, what in one's perception, the requirement of a clause would amount to being seen as unfair, unreasonable, arbitrary or unjust. When a party invokes the Court's jurisdiction and claims that a clause in the tender ought to be read in the manner he/it reads it, in such a case, the tender terms and conditions have to be read by the Court and understood in the language they are plainly expressed. Even if any particular clause is ambiguous and upon a query being raised by the Court as to what the clause precisely means or what is its requirement, the meaning that the tendering authority gives has to be accepted without reservation unless, of course, such meaning contravenes a constitutional right. This is because of the freedom that has to be conceded to the tendering authority to choose with whom it would like to enter into a
