JUDGMENT :

SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, J.

1. The petitioner participated in a tender floated by the respondent-authorities for supply of medical gases in cylinders to various hospitals. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the rejection of the petitioner’s technical bid was perverse. It is argued that Clause 3 of the eligibility criteria of the tender document required that the bidder must be a manufacturer and bulk filler of either medical oxygen or medical nitrous oxide and not manufacturers of all kinds of medical gases forming the subject-matter of the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT), being medical Oxygen, medical Nitrous Oxide and Carbon Dioxide. A bidder, according to the tender document, should only have the capability to supply all three gases but did not require a bidder to manufacture all three.

2. Clause 11 of the NIT stipulated that the bidders have to have at least three years’ experience in the field of production and selling of medical gases and did not mandate such experience in each or all of the three medical gases. The petitioner, it is argued, had the requisite three years’ experience in production and selling of medical Oxygen and as such qualifie