Only the financial turnover of the specific bidder is to be considered for contract eligibility under the Standard Bidding Documents.

1. The Centre Government in its effort to connect all the habitations of the Country with roads has formulated a scheme called "Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana" (for short PMGSY). Like other States, the people of State of Jammu and Kashmir are also beneficiary of the said Scheme. Roads in developing Country like ours constitute life line for the people. Roads guarantee the overall development of the areas and people.

2. The action of awarding the contracts has to be reasonable, transparent and must conform to the mandate contained in Art.14 of the Constitution of India, which otherwise, also constitute its 'soul'.

3. Fresh notice inviting e - Tender dated 27th May, 2012 was issued by the Chief Engineer PMGSY (JKRRDA), Jammu, whereunder on behalf of the Government of J&K State, fresh e - Tenders on item rate basis from approved and eligible contractors registered with J&K State Government CPWD, Railways or equivalent were invited for the works which were listed in the said Tender Notice. The Tender Notice at item no. 4 provided for construction of roads from Rajdhani to Paryali, Block Manjakote, Phase VII (JK12-103). This road was proposed to be constructed in Rajouri Division. The estimate cost of the construction, was 459.03 lacs. Twelve months time was provided for completion of the work. At serial no. 3 of the NIT, it was provided that any information provided on the format other than that prescribed in the S.3 of "Standard Bidding Documents" (for short SBD) would not be accepted and the bid would be treated "non responsive out rightly".

4. Fresh notice inviting e - Tenders was issued on 29.06.2012 and the estimated cost for the aforementioned works, was shown to be Rs. 429.02 lacs.

5. Petitioner - M/s Chenab Construction Joint Venture through its proprietor M/s K. K. Gupta responded to the aforementioned e - Tender Notice. His technical Bid was rejected and as per the communication dated 16th August, 2012, the petitioner was informed that his Bid has been rejected during Technical evaluation by the duly constituted committee for the reason that Turnover of the bidder was not as per the requirement of the SBD and it was found to be "non - responsive".

6. Petitioner feeling aggrieved of the said decision of the respondents has challenged the same in this writ petition.

7. Respondents have filed objections / reply affidavit.

8. Mr. Johal, learned Senior Advocate in support of the case of the petitioner referred to the certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant (Annexure - B) of the writ petition and submitted that in terms of Clause 4.4A of the SBD, petitioner is eligible and his technical bid has been wrongly rejected. Learned counsel while referring to Clause 4.4 A of the SBD submitted that it has been specifically provided, that qualification for awarding of contracts, the bidder was required to have in any one year of the last five years achieved a minimum financial turnover as certified by the Chartered Accountant and at least 50% of the turnover must have been earned by the bidder from Civil Engineering Construction works. Learned counsel submitted that since the bid contract value in this case was 429.02 lacs, as such, 75% of the bid amount was to be calculated at 75% of the bid amount and 50% of same had to be from Civil Engineering works. Learned counsel further submitted that on the basis of this evaluation 75% amount would work out Rs. 321.76 lacs and 50% of the said amount would work out Rs. 160.05 lacs. Learned counsel, while referring to the Annexure -