D. D. SINHA, J.:- Heard the learned Advocate General appearing for the petitioners, Mr. Godbole appearing for the respondent no.1 and Mrs. Soma Singh appearing for the respondent no.2.

2. Rule, returnable forthwith.

The learned counsel for the respective respondents waive service.

By consent of the parties, heard finally.

3. The following facts have given rise to the filing of the present petition :

The tender process in question was initiated by the respondent no. 1 for the purpose of availing aviation support for its CAIPEEX-II experiment. CAIPEEX is an acronym for cloud aerosol interaction for precipitation enhancement experiment. The tenders were called for supply, installation and demonstration of three stores/goods/equipments, viz. :

(i) Cloud Physics Aircraft (research aircraft).

(ii) Cloud seeding aircraft (seeder aircraft);

and

(iii) Polarimetric radar.

4. It is the case of the petitioners that the bidders were permitted to bid for all three stores or for any of them as per clause 3 of the tender document which reads thus :

"A bidder may bid for anyone or more of the items/stores/goods/equipments mentioned in Section V. A separate bid needs to be submitted for each item/store/goods/ equipment as per norms given below."

5. The learned Advocate General has submitted that following three tender notices were issued by the respondent no. 1. The first tender notice was issued on 12.11.2009. The petitioners were the only bidder who had submitted a bid pursuant to the said tender notice within a stipulated time prescribed in the said tender. M/s. Krishi Consultants submitted their bid after the specified time in contravention of the tender conditions 16.1 and 16.2 of the said tender document and, therefore, the said tender of M/s. Krishi Consultants was liable to be rejected on this sole ground alone. It is contended that the respondent no. 1 extended last date of submission of bid (24.12.2009) to 11.1.2010 only to favour M/s. Krishi Consultants by issuing a corrigendum.

6. The learned Advocate General further contended that the second tender notice was issued by the respondent no.1 on 11.1.2010 whereby sealed tenders were invited under two bid system i.e. Technical Bid and Commercial Bid from reputed Indian/foreign manufacturers/authorised distributors/authorized dealers or their authorized Indian Agents for the supply, commissioning and demonstration of stores mentioned in the said tender notice. Pursuant to the said second tender notice, the petitioners and M/s. Krishi Consultants submitted bid for all these stores, whereas, one M/s. ARC submitted bid only for radars. It is the case of the petitioners that during presentation of bids by the respective parties, various discrepancies were noted by its representative. It is submitted that by virtue of clause 5.2 of the tender document, the tender submitted by M/s. Krishi Consultants was ineligible since it was not in conformity with the said clause. Clause 5.2 of the said tender document reads thus :

"The Indian/Foreign Original Equipment Manufacturing companies (or their authorized distributors/dealers/Indian Agents) should have been in the business of supply of the stores/goods/equipments successively for the last three years."

The petitioners also pointed out other disqualifying factors pertaining to the bid submitted by M/s. Krishi Consultants for the 1st respondent. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners have also brought these facts to the knowledge of the Hon'ble Minister of Earth Sciences, Government of India. The learned Advocate General has contended that the respondent no. 1 to ensure that M/s. Krishi Consultants would continue in the bidding process notwithstanding its technical defects, scrapped the second tender notice and issued another tender notice.

7. The third tender notice issued by the respondent no.1 on 26.2.2010 once again invited bids for the supply, installation and demonstration of stores/goods/equipments mentioned therein. However, the third