JUDGMENT :

Sureshwar Thakur, J.

1. Through the instant writ petition the petitioner prays for the quashing of the proceedings of the Technical Evaluation Committee (Annexure P-8), wherebys the petitioner become declared as ineligible' vis-a-vis the instant tender process. The said tender process became initiated vide Tender Notice dated 21.10.2024 (Annexure P-6). However, it is averred that solely with the mischievous intent of ousting the petitioner from competing in the said tender, that he was declared as ineligible'. It is further averred that the said declaration was made qua him though was founded on his lacking the experience of executing two similar nature works' vis-a-vis the subject tender. However, the said ground is stated to be not well grooved on facts, as it becomes belied from the fact that the petitioner was satisfactorily running and operating the subject Water works, thus on short term tender basis w.e.f. 01.08.2024 (Annexure P-13). The further relief as prayed for, is for the quashing of order (Annexure P-10) whereby the objections of the petitioner against its ouster from the tender process based on the (supra) purported ineligibility, have also been mechanically rejected, without assigning any valid reason and without affording any effective opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

2. The petitioner also prays for the making of a mandamus, upon the respondents concerned, thus for considering the petitioners Bid as valid, besides to if found successful, thus forthwith award the Works/Contract to the petitioner.

Brief facts of the case

3. The Haryana Public Health Engineering Department (hereinafter referred to as PHED') issued a detailed notice inviting etenders vide Tender Notice ID 2024 HRY 399909 1 dated 13.08.2024 (Annexure P-1A). The bids were to be submitted by 20.08.2024 whereafter all the bids were to be opened and shortlisted by the Technical Evaluation Committee (hereinafter referred to as TEC') on 21.08.2024.

4. The petitioner being eligible submitted its application physically as well as through e-mail. Two other bidders also applied for the tender. The other co-bidders are namely (i) M/s Kumarji Lal Contractor and (ii) M/s Jain Construction Company. In the proceedings dated 06.09.2024 (Annexure P-2) as, held by the TEC, thus comprising of various officials of PHED, rather all the apposite bidders were found to be eligible.

5. The said tender was vide memo No.11715 dated 16.10.2024 of the Executive Engineer, PHED Sohna, thus recalled by PHED on the pretext, that even minimum bids were not received/, and, only one bid had qualified , relevant portion whereof becomes extracted hereinafter.

"The tender for the above said work as per schedule was to be submitted online upto 13.08.2024 at 06:00 PM the opening date was on 21.08.2024 at 10:00 AM. But one agency qualified in the bid. Hence, the tender is hereby recalled."

6. Thereafter, the petitioner wrote an email to various officials of the PHED, seeking an explanation as to why the tender was recalled when the participating firms were duly eligible for the same.

7. Vide e-tender notice bearing Notice Inviting Tender No.20241021-10-08-266148128/PHED dated 21.10.2024 (Annexure P-6), the respondent-department invited only bids from the eligible contractors, for the same works as notified earlier vide Annexure P-1A. As per the tender notice, the last date for submission of bids was 28.10.2024 and on the very same day, the bids were to be opened for evaluation and the bidders became shortlisted thereafter.

8. The petitioner being eligible again participated in the said tender, but respondent/TEC held the petitioner to be ineligible', on the alleged premise, that the petitioner has only one apposite work experience of 50%. The said imposed disqualification against the petitioner, was anvilled on the premise, that the petitioner did not have the requisite work experience, in the form of completion certificates of two works of similar nature, vis-a-vis the subject t