S. B. SINHA, J. ( 1 ) NON issuance of tender form to the petitioners by the respondent led them to file this writ application for issuance of a writ of and/or in the nature of mandamus directing the the respondents to issue tender forms in respect of the works' mentioned in Annexure "a" and "b" thereto. ( 2 ) THE fact of the matter is not in dispute. ( 3 ) THREE notices inviting tender bearing No. NITs 3, 4 and 5 were issued. The petitioners applied for tender forms for works under serial Nos. 2, 3 and 4 of NIT-3, serial Nos. 1 to 6 of NIT-4 and serial No. 2 of NIT-5. The works mentioned in serial Nos. 2, 3 and 4 of NIT-3 are as follows :-"serial No. 2 - construction of cross drainage structure at 34. 170 kms. of D. N. M. C. in P. S. Islampore, District Uttar Dinajpur. Estimated amount put to tender is Rs. 60,00,000/ -. (50% of the amount is Rs. 30,00,000/- ). Serial No. 3 - Construction of cross drainage, structure at 34. 90 kms. of D. N. M. C. in P. S. Islampore, District Uttar Dinajpur. Estimated amount put to tender is Rs. 1,02,05,000/ -. (50% of the amount is Rs. 50. 00 lakhs ). Serial No. 4 - Construction of cross drainage structure at 39. 57 kms. of D. N. M. C. in P. S. Islampore, District Uttar Dinajpur. Estimated amount put to tender is Rs. 1,00,00,000/ -. (50% of the amount is Rs. 50. 00 lacs ). " ( 4 ) SIMILARLY work mentioned in serial Nos. 1 to 6 of NIT-4 are as follows :-"serial No. 1 - Construction of pipe fall with regulator at 1. 130 kms. , fall-cum-card bridges at 3. 510 kms. , 4. 158 kms. , 4. 760 kms. , 5. 778 kms. and 6. 798 kms. and pipe fail without regulator at 7. 330 kms. of Distry. No. 9 (R) of M. M. C. in P. S. Chopra, District Uttar Dinajpur. Estimated amount put to tender is Rs. 21,33,461/ -. (50% of the amount is Rs. 10,66,730/- ). Serial No. 2 - Undone work in connection with construction of C. D. Structure at 3. 73 kms. in P. S. Chopra, District Uttar Dinajpur. Estimated amount put to tender is Rs. 46, 73,504/ -. (50% of the amount is Rs. 23,36,752/- ). Estimated amount put to tender is Rs. 21,33,461/ -. (50% of the amount is Rs. 10,66,730/- ). Serial No. 2 - Undone work in connection with construction of C. D. Structure at 3. 73 kms. in P. S. Chopra, District Uttar Dinajpur. Estimated amount put to tender is Rs. 46, 73,504/ -. (50% of the amount is Rs. 23,36,752/- ). Serial No. 3 - Construction of cement concrete lining including earth work in excavation of canal from 0. 00 km. to 7. 102 kms. of Disty. No. 10 (R) off-taking point 29-077 kms. of MMC in P. S. Chopra, District Uttar Dinajpur. Estimated amount put to tender is Rs. 46,40,000/ -. (50% of the amount is Rs. 23,20,000/-0 ). Serial No. 4 - Construction of Inspection path on left Canal Bank from 0. 00 km. to 7. 00 kms. of Distry. No 11 (L) of M. M. C. in P. S. Chopra, District Uttar Dinajpur. Estimated amount put to tender is Rs. 25,00,293/ -. (50% of the amount is Rs. 12,50,140/- ). Serial No. 5 - Construction of Inspection path over left bank of M. M. C. from 24-130 kms. to 26. 089 kms. including disposal removal of excess soils from top of canal embankment in P. S. Chopra, District Uttar Dinajpur. Estimated amount out to tender is Rs. 35,03,673/ -. (50% of the amount is Rs. 17,51,836/ -.)Serial No. 6 - Construction of Inspection Path over left bank of Disty, No. 7 (R) of M. M. C. from 0. 040 kms. to 2. 872 kms. in P. S. Chopra, District Uttar Dinajpur. Estimated amount put to tender is Rs. 22,98,814/ -. (50% of the amount is Rs. 11,49,407/- ). " ( 5 ) SIMILARLY works contained in Serial No. 2 of NIT-5 is as follows :-"serial No. 2 - Construction of matching structure of cart bridge along with distributory No. 9 (R) crossing over tailrace channel of Power Station No. II of T. V. F. Project besides 24,597 kms. of M. M. C. in P. S. Chopra, District Uttar Dinajpur. Estimated amount put to tender is Rs. 82,99,949/ -. (50% of the amount is Rs. 41,49,374/- ). of M. M. C. in P. S. Chopra, District Uttar Dinajpur. Estimated amount put to tender is Rs. 82,99,949/ -. (50% of the amount is Rs. 41,49,374/- ). " ( 6 ) THE admitted fact is that for obtaining a tender form against the said notice inviting tender, the intending tenderers were required to submit credentials showing execution of work of similar nature of value of atleast 50% of the estimated cost mentioned in the tender for a single similar work during preceding 5 years. (2) Payments certificate over 30% of the estimated value to tender in all works executed in single financial year. ( 7 ) ACCORDING to the respondents the petitioners submitted the following credentials in respect of serial Nos. 2, 3 and 4 of NIT-3 :-" (A) Construction of a RCC bridge over Distry. 2 (L) of D. M. M. C. for an amount of Rs. 13. 09 lacs. (b) Construction of a Cart Bridge at 17. 171 kms. of D. M. M. C. for an amount of Rs. 19. 76 lacs. (c) Construction of R. C. C. Box Bridge for an amount of Rs. 90. 00 lacs. (d) Providing security fencing along Indo-Bangladesh Border in West Bengal for an amount of Rs. 49. 93 lacs". ( 8 ) AS regard the application for obtaining tender forms against serial No. 1 to 6 of NIT. 4 the petitioners submitted the following documents :-" (A) Special repair to Daspara Goalgachh Road including widening of hard crust for an amount of Rs. 8. 81 lacs. (b) Construction of RCC bridge over Disty. No. 2 (L) of DMMC for an amount of Rs. 13. 09 lacs. (c) Construction of cart bridge at 17. 171 kms. of DMMC for an amount of Rs. 13. 76 lacs"; and in relation to serial No. 2 of NIT-5 they submitted the following documents :-" (a) Construction of cart bridge at 17. 171 kms. of DMMC for an amount of Rs. 19. 76 lacs. (b) Providing security fencing along Indo-Bangladesh Border in East Bengal for an amount of Rs. 49. 93 lacs (c) Construction of a RCC bridge over Ditry. 2 (L) of DMMC for an amount of Rs. 13. 09 lacs". 171 kms. of DMMC for an amount of Rs. 19. 76 lacs. (b) Providing security fencing along Indo-Bangladesh Border in East Bengal for an amount of Rs. 49. 93 lacs (c) Construction of a RCC bridge over Ditry. 2 (L) of DMMC for an amount of Rs. 13. 09 lacs". ( 9 ) THE contention of the respondents as disclosed in their affidavit-in-opposition is that the petitioners do not satisfy the criterias laid down in the notices inviting tender : inasmcuh as from a perusal of the credentials submitted by them it would appear tht they do not fulfill the criterias laid down therefor and as such their applications for supply of tender forms was rejected. ( 10 ) THE petitioners along with the writ petition did not file any document to show that they had fulfilled the criterias for obaining the tender form. The writ petition was affirmed on 10-3-1997 and was moved on 11-3-1997 as an unlisted motion. On that date this Court passed an interim order for a limited period directing the respondents not to finalise the tender form without the leave of the Court. However, it ws observed that the petitioners may be supplied with the tender forms and they may participate therein subject to the results of the writ application. The matter was listed again on 17-3-1997 on which date a contention was raised on behalf of the respondents that the petitioners did not fulfil the conditions. This Court by an order dated 17-3-1997 directed the respondents to file a short affidavit showing that other tenderers have satisfied the conditions and the petitioners did not. On that date a supplementary affidavit was filed annexing therewith certain documents. ( 11 ) ON 27-3-1997 it was contended on behalf of the respondents that the tender form would be supplied to the petitioner. However an affidavit-in-opposition was filed on that date. In the said affidavit-in-opposition although no statements had been made as to how the other tenderers could fulfil the criterias, the entire documents filed by the petitioner was annexed to the affidavit-in-opposition showing that the petitioners do not fulfil the criterias where obtaining a tender form. On 3-4-1997 the matter was adjourned for a week directing the respondents to file the records on the next day. On 3-4-1997 the matter was adjourned for a week directing the respondents to file the records on the next day. ( 12 ) PURSUANT to the said order the respondent had filed the documents before this Court which have filed by the petitioner along with his tender form. The contention of the petitioner is that their applications for supply of tender form were wrongly rejected as the petitioner had filed a certificate dated 1-7-1995 issued by the Executive Engineeer, Islampore Division C. P. W. D. which is as follows :-"this is to certify that the below noted work was entrusted with Eureka Engineer's Co-operative Society Ltd. , Islampur, Dist. Uttar Dinajpur. The work has been completed in all respect. Name of Work :- Construction of Road along Indo-Bangladesh Border in West Dinajpur District of West Bengal Sector from BP. No. 415 of BP. No. 422/18-S (13. 20 Km.) from Dhanirhat to Goalgoch. SH :- Earthwork, Culverts Phase II. Agreement No. :- 3/se/ee/icd-I/91-92. Ref. :- 54 (7)/ee/icd-I/94/1205 dtd. 19-12-1994. Tendered Amount :- Rs. 24,91,754/ -. I wish every success of the Society". ( 13 ) THE petitioners have annexed a chart showing payments received by them for the year 1995 and 1996 that they had received payment more than 30% of the tender value. The attention of the Court was also drawn to a newspaper report which is contained in Annexure 'e' to the affidavit-in-reply. Furthermore, this Court's attention was also drawn to the fact in the affidavit-in-reply wherein it was stated that the petitioners submitted a payment certificate of Rs. 30,66,112/- for the financial year 1995 and 1996. ( 14 ) THE documents which have been produced by the respondents in original before this Court do not show that the petitioners fulfill the criterias for obtaining the tender form. So fas as the certificate dated 1-1-1997 is concerned upon which reliance has been placed, it appears that the said document was not filed by the petitioner and, thus, the same could not have been taken into consideration by the respondents. The payment certificates which have been annexed by the petitioner with the supplementary affidavit were also not filed. So fas as the certificate dated 1-1-1997 is concerned upon which reliance has been placed, it appears that the said document was not filed by the petitioner and, thus, the same could not have been taken into consideration by the respondents. The payment certificates which have been annexed by the petitioner with the supplementary affidavit were also not filed. ( 15 ) THIS Court, in view of the fact that the documents relied on by the petitioners are not with the records of the case cannot go into a disputed question as to whether the said documents were filed by the petitioners or not. ( 16 ) MR. Sen, however, submitted that even if the said documents were not filed, the same should be considered as the tender is yet to be opened. The submission of the learned counsel cannot be accepted. The cause of action for filing the writ application arose when the respondents refused to issue tender form to the petitioners. The respondents have shown that the petitioners's application for supply of tender form have been rejected as they had been unable to show that they have fulfilled the criterias laid down therefor. ( 17 ) THE said documents therefor, cannot be taken into consideration, as regards serial Nos. 4 and 5 of the notices inviting tender. In any event the petitioners have also not clarified as to for which tender they had filed the aforementioned certificate dated 1-7-1995. Furthermore, from a perusal of the said certificate it would appear that the petitioner was awarded a part job in respect of construction of road namely Earth work and Culverts phase II. The said certificate, therefore, is of no avail to the petitioner for contending that he has executed a similar nature of job. ( 18 ) AS regard the petitioners' contention that they also fulfil the criteria in respect of the serial No. 2 of notices inviting tender No. 5; from a perusal of the certificate dated 1-1-1997 which is at page 14 of the supplementary affidavit it appears that the petitioner had not completed the said job but merely completed 60% of the work with the programme of completion by 30-6-1997. The said certificate also do not satisfy the requirement laid down in the notice inviting tender. The said certificate also do not satisfy the requirement laid down in the notice inviting tender. For the self-same reasons the petitioners contention that they have fulfilled the criterias for supply of tender form, in respect of serial Nos. 2, 3 and 4 of the notice inviting tender No. 3 cannot be accepted. ( 19 ) IN that view of the matter there cannot be any doubt that the respondents have not acted arbitrarily in refusing to issue tender forms to the petitioners. In Shapers Construction (P) Ltd. v. Airport Authority of India reported in (1996) 9 JT (SC) 92, the Apex Court found no force in a similar contention stating :-"the condition envisages that he shall have satisfactorily completed. The word 'completed' would indicate that as on the date of application for the tenders, he should have completed at least two runway/national highway works, preferably rigid pavement works involving considerable earth filling. In other words, the completion of the work of a least two runway/national highway is a precondition. On their own admission, they had not completed, though the major part of the work as professed by them is completed. Under these circumstances, the view taken by the High Court cannot be said to be unwarranted". ( 20 ) THE Apex Court also distinguished its earlier decisions in New Horizons Limited v. Union of India reported in (1995) 1 SCC 478 : (1998 AIR SCW 275) stating that the question raised therein was the previous experience of the contractors. In this view of the matter no relief cannot be granted to the petitioner. ( 21 ) HOWEVER, this Court must observe that the conduct of the respondents cannot be appreciated. The respondents have seemingly dis-obeyed the orders of this Court dated 17-3-1997 and 3-4-1997, in so far as they have failed to file affidavit as to how the other tenderers have fulfilled the conditions for grant of tender form and also by not producing the entire records before this Court. This Court, although could initiate a suo motu contempt proceeding against the Executive Engineer but refrains from doing so at this stage, in view of the fact that the petitioners writ application has been found to be without any substance. However, the respondent No. 1 is hereby directed to consider the aforementioned remarks and see to it that the respondent Nos. However, the respondent No. 1 is hereby directed to consider the aforementioned remarks and see to it that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 do not accept any tender submitted by any person who did not fulfil the criteria laid down therefore. In the event it comes to the notice of this Court in any subsequent writ application that the respondents have accepted tender of any person who did not fulfil the creteria laid down therefor in the notices inviting tender, a serious view of the matter shall be taken. ( 22 ) THIS application is dismissed with the aforementioned observations without any order as to costs. Petition dismissed.