( 1 ) THIS order shall also govern the disposal ofw. P. Nos. 1433/2004, 1558/ 2004, and 1559/2004 as the common question of law and facts involved in all the cases. For the sake of convenience, the facts of W. P. No. 1432/2004 may be noticed.

( 2 ) PETITIONER is aggrieved by the communication dated 10-11-2004 issued by the respondent No. 3 - Executive Engineer, c. P. W. D. Indore Central Division No. 1, indore whereby the application submitted by the petitioner for issuance of tender documents was rejected.

( 3 ) THE facts lie in narrow compass. One smt. Chandrakala Asati was running a proprietary concern. She was a registered civil contractor. Later on, Smt. Chandrakala Asati and 4 other persons formed a partnership firm in the name and style of M/s. C. K. Asati. This aforesaid partnership firm was duly registered by the Registrar of Firms and societies. The respondents floated a NIT which is available on record as Annexure p/2. One of the condition mentioned in the nit was as under :"the tender shall be issued to approved and eligible contractors of CPWD, non-CPWD contractors shall also be eligible to tender provided they have satisfactorily completed 3 similar works each of value Rs. 39,51,000/- in the period of last 5 years ending on 31-10-2004 (similar work shall be building works ). "smt. Asati by running the proprietary concern undisputedly had executed more than 3 works of the value of Rs. 39,51,000/ -. The firm applied for the tender documents, but the application was rejected in all the four cases on the ground that the petitioner firm does not have the requisite experience. Hence, present writ petition.

( 4 ) BY an interim order dated 25-11-2004, respondents were restrained from opening the bids. After notice, reply has been filed by the respondents wherein the stand taken to that there were two separate firms, therefore, the experience of Smt. Asati being the partner of the firm of M/s. C. K. Asati cannot be counted as experience of the firm which came into existence only in the year 2004.

( 5 ) I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. Perused the material available on the record. Shri Dalai, learned counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that the past experience of Smt. Asati can be taken into account and in support of this contention, he has placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court reported in (1995)1 SCC 478 : (1995 AIR SCW 275) New Horizons Ltd. v. Union of India, Shri Dalai also placed reliance on a decision of Andhra pradesh High Court reported in AIR 1999 andh Pra 318 M/s. Avula Constructions Pvt. Lt. v. Sr. Div. Electrical Engineer, Traction distribution.

( 6 ) PER contra, Shri Zelawat supported the action of respondents on the ground that the firm has to requisite experience and the experience of a partner cannot be taken into account. ( 7 ) AFTER having heard learned counsel for the parties at length, in the considered opinion of this Court, there is a force in the submission of Shri Dalai. The partnership firm which is duly registered has no personality of its own. It is compendium of partners. Thus, a firm is an association of individuals and the firm name is only a collective name of those individuals who constituted the firm. It is a compendium which has to carry on business through its constituents. The position of the experience of partnership firm has been recognized by the supreme Court in New Horizons Ltd. (1995 AIR SCW 275) (supra ). The decision of the supreme Court has been followed by the andhra Pradesh High Court in M/s. Avula constructions Pvt. Ltd. (AIR 1999 Andh Pra 318 ). In view of the aforesaid legal position, i have no hesitation to hold that the rejection of application for issuance of tender documents was bad in law. The past experience of Smt. C. K. Asati while she was running a proprietary concern can be counted towards the experience of the firm and thus, the partnership firm was eligible to obtain the tender documents. The impugned communication issued

Click Here to Read the rest of this document