Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J.

These writ appeals are directed against the order passed by the learned single Judge dated 10.03.2016, whereby, the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petitions on the ground that the Tender Calling Authority has right to impose conditions in consonance with the Tender Transparency Act, 1998. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ appeals have been preferred.

2. The brief facts, which are necessary for the disposal of the appeals, as could be culled out from the affidavit filed by the appellants/petitioners, are as hereunder :-

The appellants are either registered partnership firm or proprietary concern or company, doing business in the manufacture of holograms. The second respondent issued tender notification on 11.12.2015, for the supply of holograms, with certain pre-qualifications. The pre-qualifications prescribed included that the applicant should be a company registered under the Companies Act, that the application should be possessed of eight years of experience and that the applicant should have supplied holograms to any State Excise Department. It is the imputation of the appellant that the above conditions were tailor-made and have been incorporated to suit the 3rd respondent, who was the successful bidder in the 2011 auction and auctions held prior to 2011 as well. In such a factual scenario, left with no other alternative, the appellants filed writ petition before this Court to quash the impugned tender notification and to issue a tender notification in tune with the notification issued in the year 2011.

3. Before the learned single Judge, it was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners/appellants herein that the pre-qualifications prescribed in the tender notification amounts to arbitrariness, unreasonable and is in gross violation of the concept of level playing field. The conditions imposed in the tender also amounts to unfair practise on the part of the 2nd respondent to favour the 3rd respondent to the detriment of the other tenderers. The qualifications prescribed in the tender notification are tailor made to make only the 3rd respondent a viable tenderer to the detriment of the other persons, who are also in the field of manufacture of holograms. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners/appellants that the tender floated in the year 2011 for the very same procurement of holograms did not contain such of the clauses as found in the present tender, which clearly goes to prove that the conditions set forth in the present tender are only to the advantage of the 3rd respondent.

4. The respondents countered the stand of the petitioners/appellants that tender was floated only based on the recommendation made by the Technical Specification Committee, constituted by G.O.Ms.No.25 dated 25.8.2015, after a detailed study. The experience of eight years was prescribed to ensure that the bidder had been in continuous manufacture of holograms, so that they would possess adequate man power and technical skills. Similarly, the technical experience of eight years was imposed to ensure quality of holograms and to avoid duplication and to have successful execution of the contract.

5. The learned single Judge, after considering the submissions made on behalf of both parties and perusing the materials available on record, dismissed the writ petitions holding that the petitioners/appellants have no right to question the fixation of pre-qualification and that the second respondent has every right and power to fix the pre-qualifications to meet the standards and performance of the materials. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants are before this Court.

6. According to the learned senior counsel and learned counsel appearing for the appellants, the terms of tender is in violation of G.O.Ms.No.25, Home, Prohibition & Excise (P&E (VII) Department, dated 25.8.2015. As per the said G.O., Technical Specification Committee was constituted and it recommended t