As per case facts, the Appellant's technical bid was rejected by Bharat Coking Coal Limited (BCCL) for alleged non-compliance regarding a Power of Attorney, despite being notarized before submission. Simultaneously, ... Respondent 8's technical bid was accepted, even though it initially failed to submit mandatory audited balance sheets and was allowed to rectify this after the technical bids were opened. The High Court dismissed the Appellant's challenge, prompting this appeal. The question arose whether BCCL was justified in rejecting the Appellant's technically compliant bid while accepting Respondent 8's non-compliant bid, thereby violating tender norms. Finally, the Supreme Court ruled that BCCL's decision was arbitrary, illegal, and violated Article 14. The Court noted the Appellant's Power of Attorney was validly submitted as per norms, whereas Respondent 8's initial failure to submit crucial financial documents was a fundamental non-compliance. Emphasizing the need for fairness and transparency in public contracts, the Court stated that any deviation from tender terms must apply equally to all bidders. Thus, the decision to reject the Appellant's bid and accept Respondent 8's was set aside, and BCCL was directed to conduct a fresh tender process.