1. This Writ Appeal by the appellant-writ petitioner is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 16.10.2012 in W.P.No.19517 of 2012 dismissing the writ petition filed by him to declare the action of the 2nd respondent in not disqualifying the 3rd respondent for the breach of conditions of tender Document IFB.No.09/RBLISP/2011-12 dated 24.3.2012 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to disqualify Sri M.V.V. Satyanarayana, the 3rd respondent herein, by awarding contract in favour of the petitioner.

2. During the pendency of the writ petition, the 2nd respondent allotted the work through Letter No.SE/RBLISP/TS/TP/Viaduct/2012-13/116 dated 28.6.2012. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner filed W.P.M.P.No.33179 of 2012 to amend the prayer that the action of the 2nd respondent in allotting the work as arbitrary and violative of the terms and conditions of the tender notification.

3. The parties will be referred to by their status in the writ petition. The dispute herein relate to award of contract for construction of a Viaduct at K.M. 8.125 and earth work excavation and forming embankment from K.M. 7.500 to K.M. 9.000 of Low Level Right Main Canal of Sangambanda Balancing Reservoir, Makthal Mandal, Mahabubnagar District under Rajiv Bhima Lift Irrigation Scheme Project as per tender notification dated 24.3.2012. A period of nine months is prescribed for completion of the work. The tender process is in two stages viz., technical evaluation and financial evaluation. Technical evaluation to be undertaken in the first stage pertains to the qualification and eligibility of tenderers and in the second stage the financial bids of the qualified tenderers will be opened. Petitioner as well as Respondent No.3 applied through e-Procurement and both of them were qualified in the first stage for opening of their price bids. At this stage, the petitioner objected in qualifying the 3rd respondent on the ground that Respondent No.3 has not satisfied the mandatory conditions of the eligibility criteria of the tender notification i.e. filing of PAN Card proof and latest Income Tax Return in his name and 2. Filing of VAT registration and VAT latest clearance.

4. The tender notification dated 24.3.2012 details about the terms and conditions of the tender. Clause 24 deals with eligibility criteria. To qualify for consideration of award of the contract each tenderer should fulfill the criteria laid down therein. Sub-Clause (ii) of Clause 24 provides that the details and certificates are to be furnished as per the proforma available in the tender schedules. Details of documents mentioned therein provide that as many as 18 documents are required to be furnished by an intending tenderer. S.No.10 of the list of documents provides for furnishing proof of Income Tax PAN Card and latest Income Tax return and S.No.18 provides for furnishing of VAT (Value Added Tax) Registration and latest VAT clearance.

5. It was argued before the learned single Judge that the 3rd respondent filed his tender in his individual capacity whereas he has filed PAN Card and proof of the latest ITRs pertaining to M/s Meher Engineering, a partnership firm of which he is only a Managing partner. For the purpose of Income Tax Act, 1961 the partnership firm has a separate legal existence by virtue of Section 184 of the Income Tax Act, therefore, Respondent No.3 who filed the tender in his individual capacity cannot utilize the PAN and ITRs of the partnership firm. It was also argued that as the tender process had commenced in March, 2012, filing of the latest VAT clearance, which is a mandatory condition, would mean that the clearance would be in respect of the financial year immediately preceding the issue of the tender notice i.e. 2010-11, but Respondent No.3 filed VAT Clearance Certificate of the financial year 2009-10, therefore, Respondent No.3 who has not fulfilled the requisite conditions of the terms and conditions of