JUDGMENT

K.M. Thaker, J.

1. Heard Mr. Ashish Dagli, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Bhavesh Trivedi, learned advocate for respondent No. 1 and 2 as well as Mr. Mahesh Patel, learned advocate for respondent No. 3.

2. This petition has arisen on account of petitioner's grievance in the matter of notice inviting tender (issued by respondent municipality) for supplying manpower to execute the works, functions and duties of the municipality and granting work order to the respondent No. 3.

3. The subject or purpose of the notice inviting tender (issued by respondent municipality) viz. 'manpower supply' is actually a jargon employed by the respondent municipality for engaging outside agency and outside workers (i.e. the persons who are not employees of municipality) to execute various works including primary and essential functions and statutory duties of the respondent municipality.

4. It has emerged from the record and from the submissions that the respondent municipality issued Letter of Acceptance in favour of respondent No. 3. The petitioner felt aggrieved by the said decision and action of the respondent municipality. Hence, present petition.

5. The subject of the challenge raised in present petition is described and summarised by the petitioner in following terms:

"2. ... ... ... the legality and validity of the action on the part of the respondent Nagar Palika by giving tender to respondent no. 3 M/s. D.R. Enterprise, though the respondent no. 3 is not qualified and in fact this being an on-line tender the necessary details were also not filled in and were kept blank...."

6. The petitioner has prayed, inter alia, that:

"9(B) The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow this petition by issuing appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the action/decision on the part of the respondent municipality of accepting the tender of respondent no. 3, M/s. D.R. Enterprise, as being unjust, improper and thereby be pleased to direct the respondent to accept the tender bid of the petitioner as having found complied with all the terms conditions of the tender;"

7. So as to support and justify the relief prayed for the petitioner has averred and stated that:

"4. It is respectfully submitted that the petitioner as well as 2 other firms namely; Shiv Shakti Security, Dhoraji and D.R. Enterprise, have filled up the tender. Technical bid was opened on 5-5-2018. It is submitted that as can be seen that since it was an on-line tender, bid submitted and once it is opened on 5-5-2018 on verification of the necessary documents attached to the tender, on approval it is technically also need to be qualified. However, on 5-5-2018, the petitioner has submitted his detailed objection about disqualification of other 2 firms namely: Shiv Shakti Security and D.R. Enterprise and copy of the objection dated 9-5-2018 is annexed marked Annexure 'C' to this petition. It is submitted that the petitioner has stated in the objection that on verification at Annexure-(1) & (2) attached to the tender document, it was found that the respond could not fulfill the required criteria. It was therefore, objected that on this ground the respondent no. 3 is not to be qualified and it is the petitioner who is then left, needs to be given tender in his favour. It is submitted that the copy of the details of Annexure (2) with regard to details of turnover of Pooja Construction is annexed marked Annexure 'D' which was also submitted along with the tender bid. It is submitted that the financial data of Chartered Accountant with respect to turnover of last 3 years of M/s. Pooja Construction was also made available from Chartered Accountant and a copy of the financial data is annexed marked no. 3 is not qualified and Annexure 'E' to this petition.

5. It is submitted that on 22-5-2018, detailed objection was again given in furtherance to the earlier objection da