R. M. S. KHANDEPARKAR, J.

( 1 ) SINCE the common questions of law and facts arise m both these petitions, they were heard to gether and are being disposed of by this com mon judgment We have heard at length S/shri S K Kakodkar and S G Dessai, Senior advocates for the respective petitioners and shn S S Kantak, Advocate General for the respondent Nos 1 and 2 and S V Manohar, advocate for the respondent No 3

( 2 ) IN both these petitions, the petitioners challenge the rejection of their bids at the pre-qualification stage The bids were sub mitted by the petitioners in answer to the notices issued by the 1st respondent inviting tenders from eligible manufacturers for supply of high security registration plates for all types of vehicles in the State of Goa. The petitioners tenders have been rejected on the ground that the same were not substantially responsive in terms of the tender documents.

( 3 ) WRIT Petition No. 432 of 2005 is by promuk Hoffman International Limited, a public limited company incorporated in pursuance of and in culmination of a joint venture agreement drawn between Promuk Associates and M/s. EHA hoffman KG, a German Company, for the purpose of manufacture an