( 1 ) FOURTH respondent in the writ petition is the appellant and is aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge allowing the writ petitioni of Respondent No. 1. While allowing the writ petition, the learned single Judge directed the fourth respondent (Respondent no. 3 in the Writ Petition) to examine the letter dated 26-10-2004 received from the superintending Engineer (Electrical), CPWD and if the clarification satisfies the condition of the tender, to accept the technical bid of the writ petitioner/respondent No. 1 and on acceptance thereof to open its price bid and forward the same to the third respondent herein for consideration along with the price bid of the appellant and to take appropriate decision thereupon in terms of the tender notice.

( 2 ) FOURTH respondent issued tender notice dated 7-9-2004 for execution of the work of development of new internal roads, footpaths, parking, landscaping and providing MS grill etc. , in A. P. Secretariat, hyderabad. Bidders were required to offer technical bids and price bids. Technical bid was required to be opened on 1 -10-2004 but the date was postponed and it was opened on 25-10-2004. Besides the appellant and the first respondent, two other participated in the tender. Instead of evaluating the technical bids forthwith, the fourth respondent postponed the same to the next day and asked the writ petitioner/respondent no. 1 to furnish year-wise break up particulars of electrical experience certificate from the concerned authority for which purpose the fourth respondent handed over a letter to the writ petitioner/respondent No. 1 addressed to the Superintending Engineer (Electrical) CPWD, Hyderabad to confirm the genuineness of the certificate produced by the writ petitioner and also to furnish the financial year breakup. Clarification was required to be submitted before 3 P. M. , on 26-10-2004. Writ petitioner failed to furnish necessary clarification before 3 P. M. , on 26-10-2004, the Superintending Engineer opened the price bids of the three other participants and based upon the technical bid evaluation forwarded the same to the third respondent. At that stage, the writ petitioner filed the writ petition seeking direction to declare the action of the fourth respondent herein in not opening his price bid pursuant to the tender notice with consequential directions to the fourth respondent to open the price bid and submit the same to the third respondent and ultimately to the second respondent for grant of work mentioned in the tender notice.

( 3 ) LEARNED single Judge proceeded to allow the writ petition holding that there was no fairness or reasonableness in the action of the fourth respondent while dealing with the technical bids and price bids and there was arbitrariness on the part of the fourth respondent in not opening the price bid of the writ petitioner after receipt of clarification. Further holding that bias was shown in favour of the appellant herein, writ petition was allowed with direction to accept the clarification and open the technical bid of the writ petitioner.

( 4 ) WE have heard counsel for the parties. Having considered the submissions made before us, we are of the view that the order of the learned single Judge is not sustainable in law.

( 5 ) ADMITTEDLY, as per the tender notice only the eligible bidders could offer their bids. Eligibility condition required certificates to be furnished as per the proforma available in the tender schedule. One of the certificates required to be appended to the bid, as an essential clarification, was that the contractor or his identified sub-contractor should possess required valid electrical licence and registration for executing the electrification work and should have executed similar electrical works totalling Rs. 6. 75 lakhs in any one financial year during last five financial years.

( 6 ) BIDDER was also required to submit particulars in the format specified in the tender schedule along with