B.R. Gavai, J.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent.

2. The petitioner firm has approached this Court, being aggrieved by the decision of the respondent nos.2 to 4 in rejecting the technical bid of the petitioner.

3. The respondent nos. 2 to 4 had invited tenders for supplying and stacking of 1,50,000 cum machine crushed ballast between Seoni (including) (conforming to specifications of machine crushed stone ballast issued by RDSO, corrected up to date) in cess, in formation or in yards, in connection with gauge conversion between Chhindwara-Nainpur vide tender Notice No. CEC/BSP/2015-16/60. The tenders were to be submitted in two envelopes. The first envelope was pertaining to the technical and financial capacity of the bidder and the second envelope was with regard to the price bid. In response to the tender notice dated 2nd September 2015 as may as eight bidders had submitted their bids. The first envelopes were opened on 23rd December, 2015 in which the petitioner and one another bidder were found to be disqualified. Being aggrieved thereby, the present petition is filed.

4. Heard Shri Anand Jaiswal, learned senior counsel for the petitioner; Shr