Honble VERMA, J.–The petitioner Associated Lime Stone Limited, a registered company, is aggrieved against not opening the `price bid submitted by the petitioner in response to the calling of the tenders vide Annexure-1 by the Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Ltd. respondent. The respondent No. 1 had called for short term NIT for supply of Crystalline Calcareous Additive vide the publication dated 1.3.2001. The details and quantity and required was as under:- A.I.% - Maximum 3% Mgo - Maximum 1% R203 - Maximum 0.75% Cao - Minimum 51% Size : Minimum 2" Maximum 12" (2). The conditions of the tender were that (1) the tenderer should have operative mines; (2) should have valid mining lease for Calcite; (3) should have valid approved mien plan from Indian Bureau of Mines. It was further directed that the tenderer shall be pre-qualified on the basis of documents furnished in support of the bid. The price bid of the only qualified and technocommercially accepted tenders were to be opened. The other conditions are reproduced as under:- The tenderer will be prequalified on the basis of the following criteria: (i) should have operative Mines, Minerals Traders are not eligible. (ii) should have valid mining lease for calcite mine of minimum area of 25 Hectare in his/her own name. (iii) should have valid approved Mine Plan from Indian Bureau of Milnes (IBM) for the mines. The tender shall be prequalified on the basis of documents furnished alongwith bid in support of above criteria. Price Bid of only qualified and technocommercially accepted tenders will be opened. The decision of RSMML, will be final in this regard. (3). The tender was for a period of three years on yearly renewal basis for supply of Crystalline Metamporphosed Calcareous Additive having a chemical composition as under:- Description of Material Aprox.Qty/year Crystalline Metamorphosed 55,000+-20% MT Calcareous Additive (5,000+-20% MT Chemical composition : Max.1%, per month) R.O., Max.3%, Mgo-max.1%, R.O., Max.0.75%, Cao-Min.51% Size : Min - 2" & Max.12% (other details in tender document) (4). The petitioner after obtaining the tender form had submitted his tender with earnest money of Rs. 2.55 lacs by demand draft attached as Annexure-3. The respondents did not open the tender on 29.3.2001 and extended the date for receipt of tenders to 13.4.2001 on which date tenders were opened. There were six tenders received. The only first part of the tender was opened. (5). 2.55 lacs by demand draft attached as Annexure-3. The respondents did not open the tender on 29.3.2001 and extended the date for receipt of tenders to 13.4.2001 on which date tenders were opened. There were six tenders received. The only first part of the tender was opened. (5). The petitioner submits that he has got a valid mining lease measuring 119 Hectares upto 11.11.2012, excavating lime stone which is a mineral falling in the Calcite group of minerals. it is submitted that Lime stone is a sedimentary rock consisting largely of Calcium Carbonate (CaCo3), in the form of mineral Calcite. Calcite is a mineral also consisting of largely Calcium Carbonate. It is submitted that Lime Stone is a variety of the Calcite group of minerals and wants to support the contention on the the report of Petrology Division Geological Survey of India, Western region, Jaipur region, which report is Annexure-5. It is further submitted that the samples as obtained from the mines of the petitioner were examined and samples have showed presence of CaCo 3 ranging from 94.69% to 97.18% and also had shown the presence of CaCo3 ranging from 53.20% to 54.60%. The Mgo presence/content in the mineral is 0.40% to a maximum of 1% as per report Annexure-6. The petitioner wants to submit that the minerals demanded by the respondents to fulfill all the requirements and rather are superior than the mineral required by them. (6). It is further submitted that the price being quoted and accepted is to high and the respondent will have to pay an amount of Rs. 250/- lacs more than the petitioner had quoted. Prayer has been made for issuance of the appropriate writ for quashing the orders of non-opening the bid of the petitioner and to declare the petitioner to be eligible for participating in the bid and restraining the respondent to award the bid to be private respondent. (7). Reply has been filed by the respondents. It is stated that the petitioner has purposely not mentioned about the physical specification of Crystalline metamorphosed Calcareous Additive. The size, degree of Crystallization, cleavages and hardness/strength as mentioned in the tender is as under:- `Size: The size of the Additive material supplied should be in the range of minimum 2 inch to maximum 12 inch Fines less that 2 inch size is not acceptable. The size, degree of Crystallization, cleavages and hardness/strength as mentioned in the tender is as under:- `Size: The size of the Additive material supplied should be in the range of minimum 2 inch to maximum 12 inch Fines less that 2 inch size is not acceptable. Degree of Crystallization The Additive material should be partially metamorphosed and coarsely crystalline such that clear crystals can be identified with naked eyes. Cleavages The Additive material should possess well developed cleavage planes alone the crystal plane which can be identified with naked eyes. Hardness/strength The hardness/strength of the Additive material should be such that the rock/material can easily be broken with two to three attempts of manual hammering (8). It is further submitted that the petitioner was not having pre-qualification criteria in the NIT and tender document i.e. the petitioner company had operative mines, but there was no operative mining lease for Calcite; and no valid approved mine plan from Indian Bureau of mines (IBM) for the mines was available with the petitioner. (9). Reasons for rejecting the bid of the petitioner was that the Lime Stone is primarily a sedimentary rock composed of very fine grained CaCo3 base minerals such as Calcite or aragonite whereas Calcite for which valid mining lease is given by Government is metamorphic in origin and occurs as coarse. The requirement of tender document and the areas of main variance according t the respondents were that (1) Additive material should be partially metamorphous and coarsely crystalline such that clear crystal can be identified with naked eyes.; (2) that the technical specification; the additive material should possess well developed cleavage plane along with crystal plane which can be identified with naked eyes; (3) that the hardness/strength of the additive material should be such that the material can easily be broken with 2-3 attempts of manual hammering. (10). To sum up, the petitioner submits that even though the petitioner is mining the lime stone which consists of the material which is required by the respondents, but only because it is not calcite mine, it cannot be rejected. (11). Per contra, the respondent states that as per the advertisement, the petitioner does not fulfil the requirement or conditions. (12). To sum up, the petitioner submits that even though the petitioner is mining the lime stone which consists of the material which is required by the respondents, but only because it is not calcite mine, it cannot be rejected. (11). Per contra, the respondent states that as per the advertisement, the petitioner does not fulfil the requirement or conditions. (12). So far the approval by Indian Bureau of Mines is concerned, it is the contention of the petitioner that the mining being done by the petitioner does fall under the `minor as well under `major mines and minor mines is not required to be approved. It is also not disputed that the mine lease of the petitioner is not of Calcite, but it is of lime. The lime may be basing the same qualifications or even better but respondent No. 1 in its own wisdom had called for the tender to a particular type of mine with particular qualifications along with conditions. The petitioner with open eyes and knowingly well that even though he did not fulfill the conditions or conditions or possess the qualities of mines, had taken a risk of making the application. The respondents after going through the bid, has not opened his price bid for the reason that it does not fall within the limitations or requirement or the qualifications as prescribed in the advertisement. Even though the lime stone being mine by the petitioner may be having a more potential value but the fact remains that the petitioner does not fall within the qualification/conditions as prescribed or invited in the tender. If it be so, in my opinion, the petitioner cannot make a grievance of rejection of his tender for not opening the tender as on the face of it, it does not fulfill the requirements of the tender notice. (13). The petitions, therefore, has no merit and is dismissed at admission stage. (14). If it be so, in my opinion, the petitioner cannot make a grievance of rejection of his tender for not opening the tender as on the face of it, it does not fulfill the requirements of the tender notice. (13). The petitions, therefore, has no merit and is dismissed at admission stage. (14). However, before parting with the judgment, in case the contention of the petitioner is correct that no testing the mine, supply of such mine as posses by the petitioner or other mine holders of similar nature can bring better results with lower price, it is advisable to the respondent to get the matter tested and if the Government exchequer can be saved with some effort or change, it shall be appropriate for the authorities to consider alternatives as well and not be confine only Calcite mines when other mines with similar labour or efforts can provide and give equivalent or better result, but with lesser costs. It is expected that the authorities will look into this matter dispassionately and get it examined technically.