JUDGMENT 1. This civil revision petition under Section 115 C.P.C. is directed against the appellate order dated 12.2.2002 passed by learned District Judge, Ajmer in civil misc. appeal no. 1/2002 whereby the order dated 15.2.2001 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Div.) cum Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ajmer has been confirmed and the appeal has been dismissed. 2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that the non- petitioners issued a notice on 21.9.2001 inviting tenders for works mentioned therein. The petitioner submitted its bid in terms of the tender notice and two envelopes for each of six tenders. The first envelope was in respect of potential assessment bid and second envelope was in respect of financial bid. After opening the Potential Assessment Bid the petitioner's tender was rejected on the ground that they did not have the requisite experience. Their Financial Bid was not opened. Initially the petitioner i.e. M/s. P.N.C. Construction Company Ltd. was a proprietorship firm owned by Pradeep Kumar Jain. Lateron it was converted into a private limited company known as M/s. P.N.C. Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Pradeep Kumar Jain became its Managing Director and that w.e.f. 12.2.2001 it was got registered as a Public Limited Company. M/s. P.N.C. Construction Company was registered as 'A' Class contractor by the Chief Engineer, P.W.D. Rajasthan, Jaipur. On rejection of its tender, the petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction alongwith an application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 C.P.C. in the court of learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Div.) cum Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Ajmer alleging therein that the Potential Assessment Bid was wrongly and unjustifiably rejected and the non-petitioners themselves registered the petitioner as 'A' Class contractor on the basis of the experience of its earlier company and it was not open to the non-petitioners to reject the bid and hold him incompetent. The petitioner, therefore, prayed for grant of temporary injunction till the decision of the suit. 3. In their reply, the non-petitioners submitted that as per the prescribed procedure for works exceeding one crore of rupees the Financial Bid of only those tenderers could be opened whose Potential Bid was found to be in accordance with the norms mentioned in the Potential Assessment Bid. 3. In their reply, the non-petitioners submitted that as per the prescribed procedure for works exceeding one crore of rupees the Financial Bid of only those tenderers could be opened whose Potential Bid was found to be in accordance with the norms mentioned in the Potential Assessment Bid. The Potential Assessment Bid was opened and examined by a committee comprising of Addl.Chief Engineer, Superintending Engineer, Accounts Officers and it was not found in accordance with the prescribed norms. So, its Financial Bid was rightly not opened as the documents furnished by the petitioner pertained to M/s. P.N.C. Construction Co. and not to M/s. P.N.C. Construction Co. Limited. Further, it was essential to show the work done during the last one financial year but, the petitioner filed quantum of work done during last two financial years i.e. 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 which was not in the domain of the Department to bifurcate yearwise. Similarly, in Schedule IIA, the quantum of DBM/BM/AC/By Paver was shown to the tune of 01,05000 ton whereas in the application form it was mentioned that it was Cubic Metre work which was also against the records. So, he was rightly not found competent in the Potential Assessment Bid. They prayed for dismissal of the application for temporary injunction. 4. After hearing the parties and upon a perusal and consideration of the materials placed before it, the trial court dismissed the application for temporary injunction. However, it directed that non-petitioners shall afford an opportunity of producing certificate of experience etc. within a period of seven days to the petitioner and then non-petitioners shall hear him and pass appropriate orders in regard thereto. The petitioner moved an application before the non-petitioners alongwith certificates etc. but the application was rejected by non-petitioner no. 3 on 22.12.2001 and non-petitioner no. 2 did not pass any order. Then the petitioner filed appeal before the learned District Judge, Ajmer, who by his impugned order dismissed the appeal. Hence, this revision petition. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently challenged the orders passed by the courts below and has contended that the courts below have committed illegality in the exercise of jurisdiction. He has also argued that the Department has registered the petitioner as 'A' Class Contractor on 16.10.2001 on the basis of past experience of the earlier company. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently challenged the orders passed by the courts below and has contended that the courts below have committed illegality in the exercise of jurisdiction. He has also argued that the Department has registered the petitioner as 'A' Class Contractor on 16.10.2001 on the basis of past experience of the earlier company. It was only a case of merger and new designation. M/s. P.N.C. Construction Company and M/s. P.N.C. Construction Company Limited are one and the same person and having same identity in the eye of law. The application filed by the petitioner before the non-petitioners has been rejected on 22.12.2001 by a non-speaking order by non-petitioner no. 3 and non-petitioner no. 2 has not passed any order. He has argued that the District Judge has confused the issue by referring to the addresses of the two company and has wrongly held that these are two separate organisations. According to him, while registering the company as 'A' Class Contractor, experience of previous company was considered and taken into account while it has not been taken into consideration while considering his competence to bid for the work in question. The non-petitioner has thus committed arbitrariness, illegality and malafide and this Court should intervene in the exercise of its inherent powers and set aside the orders of the courts below. 7. Learned counsel for the non-petitioners have supported the orders of the courts below. 8. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions made at the Bar and have also perused the record as also the impugned orders. 9. It may be stated at the out set that both the courts below have concurrently come to the conclusion on the basis of materials produced before it that the petitioner could not make out a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury in its favour and that M/s. P.N.C. Construction Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. PN.C. Construction Company Ltd. are two separate and independent legal entities and the Department has rightly not found it competent in the Potential Assessment Bid Evaluation because the work experience of previous company could not be considered and counted for the subsequent company and has given cogent and valid reasons for not finding the petitioner as competent to bid because it had not mentioned all the relevant facts in the tender form. Even the fact that earlier company had merged into the later company was not mentioned and even the quantum of work which was to be disclosed was not accurately and correctly disclosed and the period for which the quantum of work was to be shown was one financial year whereas it was shown for two years instead of required one year. It was also noticed by the learned courts, below that the earlier company executed the work of Agra-Gwalior road construction of Indian National Highway upto 28.7.2001, whereas the later company is said to be registered on 12.2.2001. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any discrepancy in these conclusions. Thus looking to all these facts and circumstances, the conclusions reached by the courts below cannot be found fault with and it cannot be said that there is any illegality or perversity. There is no jurisdictional error either. It is also not in dispute that work order has been given after opening the Financial Bid to another firm and the work has already been commenced by the said firm. In these circumstances no interference whatsoever is justified, warranted and called for and this revision petition being devoid of merit and substance deserves to be dismissed.In the result, this revision petition is hereby dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******