The action of respondent NO.2 in rejecting the technical bids of the petitioner pertaining to the works covered by two tender notifications (for short 'NITs') concerning the works of widening of High Level Bridge to 8 lane carriage way across Musi river at KM 2/0 to 2/2 of Inner Ring Road (Nagole Bridge) including approaches right-side and left-side in Ranga Reddy district is questioned in this writ petition.

2. The petitioner is a registered Special Class Contractor and he is admittedly eligible to file his tenders in respect of the works in question. The High Level Bridge as described above is divided into two works and NITs were issued separately for the work of widening of bridge on right-side (for short "right-side work") vide Tender NO.38539/E-ln-C(R&B)/EE(TEC)/TA12/AEE5/07/01 dated 06.10.2007 for an estimated contracted value of Rs.2,66,57,986/- and for the work of widening of bridge on left-side (for short “Left side work") vide Tender NO.38539/E-lnC(R&B)/EE(TEC)/TA12/AEE5/07/02 dated 06.10.2007 for an estimated contract value of RS.5,01,35,383/-. The petitioner applied for both the works through e-procurement by uploading the bid documents within the stipulated time. It is the case of the petitioner that scheduled date of opening of technical and price bids was postponed and the technical bids were eventually opened on 16.11.2007. The petitioner averred in his affidavit that he was telephonically informed by the office staff of respondent NO.2 that his technical bids for both the works were rejected on the sole ground that the balance-sheet filed by the petitioner does not stand in his personal name but in the name of M/s. Meher Engineers, a registered firm (for short "the firm"). The petitioner pleaded that he is the registered special class contractor and the Managing Partner of the said firm and in view of the recitals in the partnership deed the balance-sheet and income tax return stand in the name of the said firm, and that the Income Tax Department has been assessing the turnover of the said firm by including the individual turnover of the petitioner. The petitioner further averred that the firm has no separate and independent entity or income, other than the income of the petitioner and that the petitioner's price bid is lower by 3.06% for both the works which comes to about RS.80 lakhs less than the estimated value of works. In support of the petitioner's contention that the income of the petitioner is being assessed under firm's name, he filed EX.P-6 income tax return for the assessment year 2006-07.

3. Sri B. Laxmaiah, Superintending Engineer, Roads and Buildings, Rural Circle, Balkampet, respondent NO.2 filed a counter affidavit. He averred that the technical bids in respect of the two works were opened on 31.1.2007 and that he accepted the technical bid of one Sri K. Sudershan Reddy out of three tenders received as he was found to be the only bidder who applied with all the tender eligibility conditions as per the NITs/bid documents. He further stated that the technical bid for the right-side work of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that he has not furnished the income tax return and balance-sheet statement pertaining to his individual name, as the said certificates are in the name of the firm and that the petitioner's technical bid for the left-side bridge work was rejected on the additional ground, namely, that his failure to file documents showing that he has executed the work of the value of not less than Rs. 2,00,54,154/- in anyone of the five preceding financial years as per the eligibility criterion mentioned under NIT/bid document. Respondent No.2 justified the said rejection on the ground that since the registration of the petitioner as Special Class Contractor was done in his individual name and that the firm does not figure in the Registration Certificate, the financial statements standing in the name of the said firm could not be taken into consideration. Respondent NO.2 further sta