JUDGMENT :

Aravind Kumar, J.

1. Mr. Mehul Rathod, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has circulated leave-note. However, learned counsel appearing for petitioner has opposed any adjournment being granted. Hence, leave-note circulated by learned advocate for respondent stands rejected. However, we note that respondent is represented by Ms. Nilam Chauhan, learned advocate, who is present before the Court and she assures the Court to address the arguments on behalf of Mr. Mehul H. Rathod.

2. Since the matter lies on a narrow compass, we have taken up this matter for final disposal with consent of learned advocates appearing for the parties.

3. Respondent invited e-tenders for the work of construction of CC road, divider, grill, plantation and storm waterline in various area at Vadnagar under SJMMSVY - Sadak Yojana, District Mehsana by tender notice dated 12.02.2022. Said tender was under two tier basis namely technical and financial. Petitioner is a proprietory concern and duly registered as ‘A’ Class contractor with the Government of Gujarat. He participated in the subject tender by submitting his bid. As per the tender conditions, technical bid was required to be opened on 02.03.2022 and final bid or financial bid was required to be opened on 04.03.2022. Accordingly, it was opened and in the technical bid, petitioner came to be disqualified. As such, his financial bid was not opened and on opening the financial bid, respondent No.2 was found to be L1 bidder and accordingly, contract has been awarded by issuance of work order dated 28.04.2022. Being aggrieved by not opening of his tender, petitioner has approached this Court and sought for a direction to respondent No.1 to open the bid submitted by petitioner. The prayer sought for by petitioner reads :

“(B) Your Lordship will be pleased to allow this petition by issuing a writ of Mandamus or Certiorari or any other appropriate writ in the form of order of directions to the respondent No.1 Nagarpalika directing them to open bid which of the petitioner, and after scrutiny of all the bids, L-1 bidder may be awarded the work order of the work in question.”

4. On being notified respondent has appeared and filed its reply affidavit whereunder the averments made in the petition has been denied except to the extent admitted thereunder. It is contended that first respondent has adhered to the terms and conditions stipulated under the notice inviting bid and there is no illegality or irregularity and by relying upon Clause-6 of the notice inviting tender, it is contended that petitioner has not fulfilled said criteria and as such, bid offered by petitioner came to be disqualified and question of opening financial bid submitted by petitioner did not arise at all.

5. We have heard the arguments of Shri N.L. Ramnani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms. Nilam Chauhan, learned counsel appearing for respondent.

6. It is the contention of Mr. Ramnani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that respondents had committed a serious error in rejecting the bid of the petitioner namely technical bid and it was without any basis. He would draw parallel to the claim of respondent No.2 who had also purportedly not fulfilled condition No.6 stipulated under the notice inviting tender and yet his bid was accepted and he has been offered the bid and as such, contending that the acts of respondent No.1 is tainted with malafides and there are not bonafides, he seeks for Special Civil Application being allowed. He would also submit that reasons assigned for rejection of the bid as indicated in the reply affidavit were never informed to the petitioner and as such, he prays for grant of prayers made in the Special Civil Application.

7. Per contra, Ms. Nilam Chauhan, learned advocate appearing for the respondent would contend that process adopted by first respondent for evaluating the tender in stricto sensu of the terms of the notice inviting tender and there is no error much less illega