issued by a Dental Surgeon. However, Clause 6.2.19 of the NIT did not specify that a Medical Fitness Certificate could only be issued by an MBBS Doctor. He thus submits that Clause 6.2.18 and Clause 6.2.19 have been substantially complied with and the same was accepted by the authorities. He also submits that whether a term of an NIT is an essential condition or not, is a decision to be taken by the employer/author of the NIT, which should be respected. Even if a term in the NIT is an essential condition, the employer has the inherent authority to deviate from it, provided that the deviation is applicable to all bidders/potential bidders. In this respect, he has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Central Coalfields Limited & Another vs SLL – SML (Joint Venture Consortium) & Others , reported in (2016) 8 SCC 622 . He has also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Coking Coal Limited & Others vs. AMR Dev Prabha & Others reported in (2020) 16 SCC 759, wherein it has been held that in addition to arbitrariness, illegality or discrimination under Article 14, public interest too is to be demonstrated, before a remedy can be sought in contractual matters. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above case further held that unless the Court is satisfied that there is a substantial amount of public interest involved or transaction is entered into malafide, the Court should not intervene under Article 226 in disputes between two rival tenderers. Mr. K.P. Pathak thus submits that the writ petition should be dismissed.
