( 1 ) HEARD Sri M. P. Chandramouli, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Irrigation on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4 herein.

( 2 ) THE core question, which is involved in this writ petition for consideration, is as to whether on the facts and circumstances, in case of submission of tender, the documents to be filed by the tenderer should be attested by a Gazetted Officer and the non-compliance of which would authorize the authorities to reject the same.

( 3 ) THE brief resume of the facts is that the petitioner, who is a contractor, seeks to assail by way of a writ of mandamus against the impugned action of the respondents in rejecting his technical bid and proceeding to evaluate the financial bid of other tenderers pursuant to the notification issued by the respondents for the purpose of construction of the check- dam across Gundlakamma River near boddiluruvaripalem, Ongole Mandal, prakasham District as arbitrary, void and without jurisdiction and consequently direct the respondents to open the price bid of the petitioner and evaluate it for the work along with the other price bids.

( 4 ) IN pursuance of the notification issued by the fourth respondent herein on 16-2-2004 calling for the tenders for the aforesaid work, which was at an estimated cost of Rs. 415. 93 lakhs, the petitioner had submitted his, tender formats duly filled and enclosed with all the documents, as required along with the Certificate of registration, Income Tax clearance, Sales tax Certificate, Experience Certificate, commercial Tax certificate etc. , on 8-3-2004 which was the closing date for submission of tenders. The bid as contemplated as consists of two parts viz. , one technical and another one price bid. Having submitted the said bid, the petitioner uploaded all the documents and certificates after duly signed by him, submitted copies of all the documents as per Clause 26 (c) and clause 27 of the Notice inviting tenders and also Clause 2. 2 of Tender conditions. It is the case of the petitioner that his bid and the documents enclosed are in strict conformity of all the requirements. According to him, as per Clause 26 (b) of the Notice inviting tender details, the bidders shall sign in all the statements, documents, certificates uploaded by them, owning responsibility and for the correctness and authenticity. Therefore, he had complied with the same by duly signing and it is his further case that nowhere amongst the conditions it is contemplated that any documents or papers have to be attested by the Gazetted officer. Subsequent to the last date for submission of tenders on 8-3-2004, the opening of the technical bid was proposed for 9-3-2004 and the opening of the price bid was fixed on 15-3-2004. However, the petitioner was not aware nor informed about the result of his bid and it is only on checking with the website on 25-3-2004, it was found that the evaluation was in progress. Subsequently, he did not receive any like information. Therefore, the petitioner had to make enquiries in the Circle Office and he was informed that the price bid was not opened on the ground that the copies of the certificates and documents filed by him were not attested by a Gazetted Officer. Thereupon, the petitioner addressed a letter dated 6-4-2004 to the second respondent herein pointing out that there is no such requirement nor was it contemplated under any of the tender conditions and therefore the rejection of the petitioner s tender was not correct. The said letter was marked to the respondents 3 and 4. In reply thereto, the fourth respondent gave a letter dated 7-4-2004 stating that the Condition No. 2. 2 of the tender conditions requires that the attested copies of the uploaded statements, certificates and documents have to be submitted by the bidder to the Superintending engineer before opening of the technical bid. The petitioner subsequently met the authorities and tried to convince the