Satisfaction of eligibility criteria for technical bids is crucial for acceptance, and failure to meet the stipulated requirements can lead to rejection of the bid.

A. S. NAIDU, J.

( 1 ) BEING aggrieved by the action of the opposite parties in rejecting his technical bid, the petitioner has approached the portals of this Court. Admittedly, Tender Call Notice, vide annexure-3 to the Writ Petition, was published in the samaj, an Oriya daily, on 30th October, 2003 by the Chief Engineer, Rural Works-II, orissa, Bhubaneswar, opposite party No. 2, inviting tenders from experienced and qualified contractors for construction of road and cd works under Pradhan Mantri Gram sadak Yojna including maintenance for live years after construction. The Tender Call notice specifically stipulated the eligibility criteria and provided that the intending contractors should submit two bids in two separate envelopes, one being technical bid and the other being price bid. It was also stipulated in the Tender Call Notice that if a tenderer would be found eligible and his technical bid would be accepted after scrutiny, his price bid would be considered. Clause 4. 4. A of the Instructions to Bidders contained in the Bidding Document/tender paper Annexure-4 stipulated as follows :"4. 4. A To qualify for award of the Contract, each bidder should have in the last five years; a) Achieved in any one year a minimum financial turnover (in all cases of civil engineering construction works only) volume of construction work of at least the amount equal to the estimated cost of works (excluding maintenance cost for five years) for which bid has been invited. The turnover will be indexed at the rate of 8 per cent for a year, b) Satisfactorily completed, as prime contractor, at least one similar work in a year equal in value to one-third of the estimated cost of work (excluding maintenance cost for five years) for which the bid is invited, or such higher amount as may be specified in the Appendix to ITB. "according to the petitioner it satisfied the criteria stipulated in aforesaid Clause 4. 4. A (b) and in support of the same he had furnished the necessary information and certificates from the concerned authorities. In spite of the fact that the petitioner satisfied all the criteria and he being an experienced contractor having executed similar type of works, as would be evident from the information and certificates furnished by him along with the Tender Forms, the opposite parties illegally rejected his technical bid. It is alleged that such action of the opposite parties amounts to not only colourable exercise of power, but also otherwise unjust, illegal and liable to be quashed.

( 2 ) AFTER receiving notice, a detailed counter-affidavit has been filed by the opposite parties. In the counter-affidavit it has been specifically stated that the petitioner did not possess the requisite experience and he also did not satisfy the mandatory requirements of Clause 4. 4. A. It has also been averred in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner had left certain columns in the pro forma attached to the Tender Paper blank. In view of the fact that the petitioner had not fulfilled all the required eligibility criteria and had not satisfied the basic ingredients of clause 4. 4. A, the authorities have rightly rejected his technical bid. In response to the tender Call Notice, only two tenders were received and as both the tenderers did not possess the required eligibility and did not satisfy the requirements of Clause 4. 4. A, the authorities rejected both the tenders and have published a fresh Tender Call Notice. A submission has also been made contending that as the petitioner has already submitted his tender in response to the fresh tender Call Notice, the Writ Petition has become infructuous and is liable to be dismissed on that ground alone.

( 3 ) IN course of hearing, Mr. Mohanti, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner, forcefully submitted that the petitioner has submitted his tender in response to the fresh Tender Call Notice in consonance with the order passed by this Court in the present case giving him liberty to