36 . The same aspects apply to the observations regarding “contra proferentem rule” as referred by the High Court with reference to United India Insurance [United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Orient Treasures (P) Ltd., (2016) 3 SCC 49 : (2016) 2 SCC (Civ) 14] . The said rule was referred by this Court while not accepting the argument made on behalf of the insured and while observing that the said rule had no application, when the language of the relevant clauses was plain, clear and unambiguous. We may, however, observe that even from the extracted part of the principles related with the “contra proferentem rule”, as reproduced by this Court from the Halsbury's Laws of England, it is clear that the said rule was applied in the case of ambiguity in the insurance policy because the policies are made by the insurer and its ambiguity cannot be allowed to operate against the insured. This rule, in our view, cannot be applied to lay down that in case of any ambiguity in a tender document, it has to be construed in favour of a particular person who projects a particular viewpoint. The obvious inapplicability of this doctrine to the eligibility conditions in a notice inviting tender could be visualised from a simple fact that in case of ambiguity, if two different tenderers suggest two different interpretations, the question would always remain as to which of the two interpretation is to be accepted? Obviously, to avoid such unworkable scenarios, the principle is that the author of the tender document is the best person to interpret its documents and requirements. The only requirement of law, for such process of decision-making by the tender inviting authority, is that it should not be suffering from illegality, irrationality, mala fides, perversity, or procedural impropriety. No such case being made out, the decision of the tender inviting authority (NVS) in the present case was not required to be interfered with on the
