JUDGMENT :

MANGESH S. PATIL, J.

Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. The learned A.G.P waives service for respondent no. 1. Respondent nos. 2 and 3 have been served but have not caused appearance. Learned advocate Mr. Bhalerao waives service for respondent no. 4 and the learned advocate Mr. Salunke waives service for respondent no. 5. At the joint request of the parties, the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission.

2. The petitioner is challenging his disqualification at the technical evaluation of the offer submitted by him in respect of the E-tender notice no. 22/2023-24, floated by the respondent nos. 2 to 4 for the work ‘Restoration of canal section and lining in 47 km to 48 km of Paithan Left Bank Canal’. It is also challenging qualification of respondent no. 5 at the technical evaluation. It is seeking writ of mandamus against respondent no. 4 directing him to qualify it and to open its financial bid.

3. Mr. Bhandari would submit that the petitioner was disqualified primarily for two reasons; (1) absence of digital signature, and (2) failure to submit proof of I.P. address of the device from which the tender is uploaded. He would submit that both these shortc