Honble ASOPA, J.—Since common questions of fact and law are involved in these two writ petitions, therefore, both have been clubbed, heard and are being decided together.

(2). By S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3134/2006, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated 10.4.2006 (Anx. 11) by which the respondent No. 2 has disqualified the petitioner from participating in the financial bid. The petitioner company has prayed for production of the entire record of the said Bid and notice for invitation of bid for High Security Registration Plates (in short `HSRP) and quashing of the said order dated 10.4.2006 with the further prayer that the direction be issued to the respondents to treat the petitioner company as qualified and simultaneously allow it to take part in further process of tender. The petitioner company has also prayed that the respondents be restrained from proceeding further in the tender process by awarding the contract to any other party and issuing the Letter of Intent in favour of any party.

(3). Briefly stated, the relevant facts of the case are that the petitioner, which is a public limited company, entered into joint venture with M/s. EHA Hoffmann KG and SIEGEM EISS, West Germany and submitted its tender for HSRP, the NIT for which was issued by the respondents on 20.4.2005. It is stated in the writ petition that the joint venture partner has been into manufacturing and supply of HSRP for almost 40 years and have been operating in more than 30 countries worldwide. The last date for submission of the Bid was 25.5.2005; date for opening of the technical bid was the same date as that of submission of the bids i.e. 25.5.2005 and the validity of the bid was 90 days from the date of opening of the technical bid; the technical bids were opened on 25.5.2005 and the petitioner company was disqualified in the technical bid on 10.4.2006. In between, there was correspondence with the petitioner company which has been placed on record with the further averment that the documents submitted by the petitioner-company with the tender fulfilled the eligibility criteria under Clause 1.6 and Rule 50 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicle Rules (in short `the Rules). The petitioner company has also stated in the writ petition that during the verification as per the check list, the respondents did not find any fault with the petitioner company as well as the bid submitted by it. However, on 6.9.2005 (Anx. 7), the petitioner was informed to explain how it was eligible for the bid as per the requirement of the bid document particularly with regard to the joint venture document executed by the constituent of the petitioner. Reply to the said letter was given on 10.9.2005 (Anx. 8) and no further enquiry was raised with regard to the said issue which clearly revealed that the respondents had accepted the explanation submitted by the petitioner company with regard to the joint venture. Further query was raised by the respondents/Tender Evaluation Committee on 12.9.2005 relating to experience certificates, reply of which was given by the petitioner on 14.9.2005 (Anx. 9) and details along with the desired invoice and translated documents and certificates in order to demonstrate that it has complied with the eligibility criteria pertaining to experience as desired in the bid document. Thereafter, suddenly on 10.4.206, the respondent No. 2 informed the petitioner company about its disqualification in technical bid for HSRP with the further information that the refund order of earnest money deposited by the petitioner along with the bid have also been issued vide order dated 10.4.2006. Although in the order dated 10.4.2006 no specific reason has been assigned but it is stated in the writ petition that the reason is not fulfilling the experience criteria as required under the tender condition No. 1.6 and Rule 50 of the Rules.

(4). By SBCWP No. 3812/2006, the petitioner M/s. Hind Industries Limited, has challenged the validity of the order d

Click Here to Read the rest of this document