Anant S. Dave, J.

1. Heard Mr. Sudhir Nanavati, learned Senior Advocate, for the petitioners.

2. Rule. Learned counsel Mr. Satyam Chhaya waives notice of Rule on behalf of respondents.

2.1 With consent of learned counsels for the parties, the petition is taken up for hearing and disposal together.

3. The petitioners have filed this petition invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the Tender Conditions; viz. [a] Condition No. 1(i) pertaining to 25% of total vehicles shall have to be owned by bidder with RTO passing year 2015; [b] Condition No. 3 which provides for disqualification if applicant or any of its constituent partners have been debarred or terminated or black listed by any State or Central Government agency; [c] Tenderer must have to submit bank solvency certificate to the extent of Rs. 2.92 crores; [d] Condition No. 10 which provides for 50% of the vehicle shall be owned by bidder for carrying out door to door work for collection of garbage as per notice inviting tender by respondent - AMC for door to door/gate refuse garbage collection and transportation up to refused transfer station/dumping site/treatment plant using own close body vehicles with tipping arrangement including labours in accordance with Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 for the period of 5 years for Ahmedabad City, as unjust, unreasonable, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1) (g) of the Constitution of India and prayed to quash and set aside the E-Tender Notification issued by respondent No. 2 on 31.12.2016.

3.1 This court by CAV Judgment dated 17.04.2017 disposed of Special Civil Application No. 1994 of 2017 with Special Civil Application No. 1367 of 2017 pertaining to the same subject tender issued by the respondent - AMC. Barring one contention pertaining to disqualification clause under Item No. 3, all other contentions are considered, dealt with and answered. The above reasons, findings and conclusions drawn in the above writ petitions are applicable qua contentions about 50% fleet of vehicles to be owned by the tenderer and registration number of RTO passing of the vehicle as 2015 and furnishing bank solvency to the extent of Rs. 2.92 crores are upheld and declared not onerous or incapable of complying with in the context of magnitude of nature of disposal of waste/garbage in the city of Ahmedabad. This petition is also disposed of qua the above issues for the reasons recorded in CAV Judgment dated 17.04.2017 in Special Civil Application No. 1994 of 2017 and allied matter.

4. Now, we deal with the contention pertaining to disqualification clause in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

5. According to the petitioners, a contract given in favour of petitioner - Trust by Gwalior Municipal Corporation, State of Madhya Pradesh, came to be terminated in the year 2009. The petitioner - Trust challenged the said action by filing Writ Petition No. 3847 of 2009 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, which came to be disposed of on 09.09.2009 with a direction to the petitioner - Trust to approach Gwalior Municipal Corporation in terms of clause 53 of the contract and further directed the Commissioner that such representation qua the dispute be decided without being influenced by the resolution of Councilors. However, the Commissioner, Gwalior Municipal Corporation by order dated 25.11.2009 stated that since the contract was terminated the issue was required to be resolved in accordance with clause 53(2) of the contract, which provides for resolving the disputes by Arbitration. The above order was again subject matter of Writ Petition No. 3847 of 2009, which came to be dismissed and against which SLP No. 28523 of 2010 was preferred before the Apex Court and the Apex Court disposed of the said SLP on 07.05.2014 by not interfering with the impugned order of the High C