JUDGMENT :

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

These are the two writ petitions, which have been preferred by the petitioner/ contractor.

2. In WPMS No.2175 of 2020, the petitioner has preferred this Writ Petition, where he has questioned the tender notice, which was published on 17th November 2020, which was, issued by the respondent No.2 i.e. Chief Engineer, Bareilly Road, Military Engineering Services, on various factual counts, which has been pleaded by the petitioner in the Writ Petitions.

3. Partially the facts of both these Writ Petitions as mentioned above would be common. So far it relates to the status of the petitioner, which the petitioner legally enjoys as a proprietorship firm, claiming to be engaged in the construction work with the Military Engineering Services. It is an admitted case where the work contract was granted to the petitioner by the respondents by an order dated 2nd March 2017, for the completion of the work providing of security wall to the RIMC, Dehradun. As per the tender notice, and the invitation of the contract, the total value of the contract was assessed to be Rs.95,35,599.89/-. According to the covenants of the contract, and the work order issued on 2nd March 2