JUDGMENT A.N. Varma, J. - The petitioners have challenged the acceptance of the tenders offered by respondent nos. 3 and 4 in response to an advertisement inviting tenders for supply of medicines to the Swarup Rani Nehru Hospital, Allahabad for the year 1981-82. They contend that neither of respondent nos. 3 and 4 was eligible on the relevant date, namely, 30th of March 1981, and consequent respondent nos. 1 and 2 committed an illegality in accepting their tenders. In the writ petition it has been asserted, that respondent nos. 3 and 4 did not submit along with their tenders proof of the fact that they were licensed drugs dealers and also that they had not been prosecuted under the Drugs Act. It is asserted that though proof of these facts was given subsequently that would not cure invalidity of the tenders. In the counter-affidavit which has been filed on behalf of the Government, these assertions have been denied and it has been stated that the respondents had complied with the requisite conditions entitling them to be considered for grant of the contract. 2. In order to appreciate the controversy between the parties, we are setting out here the relevant condition which was the subject of arguments at the Bar. Condition no. 3 reads as follows : "3. Tenders will be opened by the undersigned in his office on 30-3-1981 at 3 p.m. in presence of such tenderers or their authorised representatives who may chose to attend. Tender tor supply of drugs will be accepted from registered and licenced drugs dealers only and they must produce proof of the same with the tender of medicine, and also with a letter that they have never been prosecuted under Drugs Act" 3. Learned counsel placed reliance on a decision of this Court in M/s Yadav Medical Store, Allahabad. The State of Uttar Pradesh and others, AIR 1981 All 139 1981 UPLBEC 194 in which it was ruled that in order to entitled a person to have his tender accepted the eligibility must exist on the date on which the matter of acceptance of the tenders is Considered. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties we find no merit in this petition. If the counter-affidavit it has been asserted that in regard to the tenders for the earlier year the said respondents, namely, respondent nos. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties we find no merit in this petition. If the counter-affidavit it has been asserted that in regard to the tenders for the earlier year the said respondents, namely, respondent nos. 3 and 4 had already furnished along with their tenders the Drug licences possessed by them as also a certificate stating that the respondents had not been prosecuted for any offence under the Drugs Act. However. by way of abundant caution the said respondents had also furnished photostate copies of these documents in regard to the year in question before 20th March, 1981. In our opinion on the facts of the present case it is clear that respondent nos. 3 and 4 had fully complied with condition no. 3 quoted above. The Drugs licence as well as the letter standing that the respondents had not been prosecuted, were already in possession of the concerned authority before the relevant date namely, 30th March, 1981. Even the photostate copies of the said documents had been filed in February 1981, i.e., earlier than the date fixed for consideration of the various tenders. Under these circumstances it cannot be said that respondent ops. 3 and 4 had not complied with condition no. 3. 5. As regards the decision cited above, the same appears to be clearly distinguishable. In that case the person whose tender had been accepted did not possess the requisite licence on the relevant date, namely, the date fixed for consideration of the tenders. It also did not have a local shop on or before that date. It was in these circumstances that the Bench held that the said concern was not eligible for being considered as it did not possess the requisite eligibility on the relevant date. In the present case it is not disputed that on the relevant date the said respondents did possess the requisite licence and that on or before that date they had not been prosecuted for any offence under the Drugs Act. Furthermore as mentioned above, even the proof of these facts had already been furnished. For these reasons the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners is clearly distinguishable. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that respondent nos-3 and 4 had deliberately under quoted the tenders with a view to having their tenders accepted. Furthermore as mentioned above, even the proof of these facts had already been furnished. For these reasons the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners is clearly distinguishable. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that respondent nos-3 and 4 had deliberately under quoted the tenders with a view to having their tenders accepted. It was submitted that in these circumstances consideration of public interest demanded that such tenders which were on the face of it, according to the petitioners, so ought not to have been accepted. We find no substance in this submission also. The petitioners have laid no foundation in the petition to justify the conclusion that the tenders of respondent nos. 3 and 4 were so grossly low that public interest would be adversely affected in any way by the acceptance of those tenders. 7. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with Costs.