mandated to offer it to other bidders from L-5 downwards. However, in order to save time, as per Clause 2.4.5, the tender issuing authority was entitled to seek price matching from all the remaining bidders from L-2 downwards simultaneously. From what is available on record, it is clear that none of the other remaining bidders from L-2 downwards, agreed to match with the “rate per packet” of Packet-1 as quoted by the petitioner. If that were so, we have no doubt whatsoever that the RFP and the tender process would have got frustrated which would be clearly contrary to the public interest. We are acutely conscious of the fact that the purpose of the Aadhaar Authority in notifying the subject RFP would surely have been defeated and frustrated. 43. Yet another aspect that we are conscious of is that in such circumstances, as noted in the paragraph 38 above, the Aadhaar Authority could have annulled the subject tender process and issued a fresh tender, however, there could be no guarantee keeping in view the present facts that the fresh tender process also may not have got frustrated due to similar situation. As observed in the preceding paragraphs, it would have been altogether a different situation had the RFP envisaged execution of the Project by a single bidder. Thus, the decision of the Aadhaar Authority appears to have been taken in the interest of the project and paramount public interest. We are fortified in our view with the ratio laid down in Pace Digitek Private Limited vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Ors., W.P.(C)15518/2024 dated 02.07.2025, wherein this Court had, despite noting that the tender issuing authority had committed certain errors, did not interfere or interdict the tender process or the execution of the contract purely in public interest and in the interest of the project. It would be worthwhile to reproduce the relevant paragraphs of Pace Digitek (supra) which read thus:
