S.J. VAZIFDAR, J.

1. It is not only convenient but necessary to consider both these petitions by a common order and judgment.

2(A) In CWP No.21863 of 2016, the petitioners have sought a writ of certiorari to quash the Technical Bids Evaluation Summary dated 10.10.2016 of the committee constituted by respondent No.1 rejecting their technical bid on the ground and with the remark:

“Cartelisation B/W RS Labour and Transport Contractor & Sushil & Co.”. The petitioners have also challenged a communication dated 10.10.2016 addressed by the official respondents informing the petitioners of this decision and that the earnest money deposited (EMD) by them was forfeited.

(B) In CWP No. 21864 of 2016, the petitioners have sought an order quashing the Technical Bids Evaluation Summary dated 10.10.2016 by which the petitioners’ technical bid was rejected by the committee. The rejection was on account of the forfeiture of the petitioners’ EMD in the above matter and a term in the tender documents disqualifying a bidder whose EMD is forfeited in any other contract by respondent No.1.

(C) In both the petitions, the petitioners have challenged the award of the work in favour of respondent No.3