JUDGMENT - THAKKER C.K., C.J.:---The petition is filed by the petitioner for an appropriate writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside tender, as also work order, issued by respondent No. 1 in favour of Suyog Telecom respondent No. 4 or any other contractor. A further prayer is sought directing respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to stop work order forthwith by issuing fresh tender deleting the requirement as to "certificate of work obtained in the last financial year" and allowing the petitioner to participate in tender process. 2.The case of the petitioner is that he is Project Manager of M/s. Marathwada Radio Communication System, a proprietary firm registered in 1987. The petitioner is thus having experience erection. The petitioner stated that the Telecom Department, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Ratnagiri respondent No. 1 herein, issued tender notice for carrying out the work of Erection of Transmission Towers and Maintenance Work by reputed agencies. Since the petitioner was eligible and qualified, he applied for a tender form, which was issued to him on March 28, 2003. The petitioner perused the tender form and conditions mentioned therein. 3.Condition No. 9 read thus: "Essential Qualification:---The tenderer should have done the work of erection of at least 10 Nos. of 40 mtr. towers of various sizes and allied works in DOT/BSNL/MTNL. Experience certificate to this effect should (be) enclosed in last financial year." (emphasis supplied) 4.The petitioner could not understand the condition, and particularly the last part mentioned in Condition No. 9. He, therefore, raised an objection against the said condition immediately by a letter dated March 28, 2003 (Exhibit F). In the said letter, it was stated by the petitioner that the petitioner had not understood the Special Condition regarding experience certificate "in last financial year". A request was, therefore, made to clarify that condition at the earliest. It was also the case of the petitioner that when a tender form was supplied to him, he was not informed about the Special Condition, and hence, he filled in the form, and submitted the tender with requisite amount of deposit. The petitioner was present at the time of opening of tenders, and his signature was obtained. Since the petitioner had quoted lowest rates work-contract ought to have been given to him. Unfortunately, however, the petitioner had not been awarded the work. The petitioner was present at the time of opening of tenders, and his signature was obtained. Since the petitioner had quoted lowest rates work-contract ought to have been given to him. Unfortunately, however, the petitioner had not been awarded the work. On April 10, 2003, the petitioner visited the office of respondent No. 1, but he was orally told that the work had been awarded to Syuog Telecom, Solapur, respondent No. 4, as the tender of the petitioner was rejected as having not satisfied Special Condition. The petitioner, therefore has approached this Court. 5.Notice was issued on September 16, 2003 and was made returnable on September 30, 2003. The respondents appeared, affidavits and further affidavits have been filed. We had heard the learned Counsel for the parties. We had also clarified that we would be finally disposing the matter. According, the learned Counsel made submissions. 6.The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that an action of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 of imposing Special Condition, being Condition No. 9, and in particular, the later part thereof relating to experience certificate "in last financial year" is arbitrary, unreasonable and improper. The said clause is, therefore, liable to be quashed and set aside. It was submitted that as soon as the petitioner obtained tender form, he raised an objection and sought clarification, but no clarification was made by respondent No. 1. It was also urged that the condition relating to certificate in "last financial year" can neither be said to be based on intelligible differentia, nor it has the nexus with the object sought to be achieved thereby, i.e. the work to be done by the tenderer. The action, therefore, is violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution. The Counsel submitted that at other places the respondent authorities had not insisted upon such requirement or condition. Not only that but wherever such requirement was stated in the tender document, it was not insisted and subsequently deleted. In the instant case, the condition was included with a view to favour respondent No. 4, and hence, the action is liable to be set aside. Counsel submitted that since the rates quoted by the petitioner were lowest, in absence of special circumstances and adequate reasons, it was not open to the authorities to award contract to respondent No. 4, and the said action is illegal, mala fide, improper and unlawful. Counsel submitted that since the rates quoted by the petitioner were lowest, in absence of special circumstances and adequate reasons, it was not open to the authorities to award contract to respondent No. 4, and the said action is illegal, mala fide, improper and unlawful. The Counsel also urged that in spite of repeated requests by the petitioner, no clarification was made by the respondent-authorities and tender of respondent No. 4 was accepted. It was, therefore, prayed that the impugned action may be quashed and set aside by directing the respondent authorities to issue fresh tender and to take appropriate action in consonance with law. 7.An affidavit is filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 contesting the petition. It was, inter alia, contended that the petition is not maintainable at law. According to the deponent, the petition has become infructuous, as the work orders had already been issued on July 21, 2003 and August 14, 2003. It was also stated that the petitioner had not come with clean hands and suppressed material facts. The grievance of the petitioner that his tender form was rejected with mala fide intention is not correct. Since the petitioner had not fulfilled requisite conditions set out in the tender notice, on proper scrutiny, the respondents were constrained to reject his tender form. 8.According to respondent Nos. 1 and 2, every tendered had to satisfy two conditions, (i) he must have done at least ten work of erection of 40 metre towers of various sizes; and (ii) he must produce experience certificate issued by DOT/BSNL/MTNL to that effect in the last financial year. Since the conditions were not fulfilled by the petitioner, his tender form was liable to be rejected and accordingly, it was rejected. 9.The deponent proceeded to state that pursuant to the notice inviting bids, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 received four tenders. On scrutiny, however only one tender form was found to be fulfilling all the conditions specified in the tender notice. It was submitted by respondent No. 4. Accordingly, tender form of respondent No. 4 was accepted. The action was, thus, in consonance with the policy of the respondents, and no favour was shown to respondent No. 4. It was also stated that when an objection as to experience certificate was raised by the petitioner, it was clarified to him that it was a pre-condition for consideration of tender form. The action was, thus, in consonance with the policy of the respondents, and no favour was shown to respondent No. 4. It was also stated that when an objection as to experience certificate was raised by the petitioner, it was clarified to him that it was a pre-condition for consideration of tender form. The petitioner, therefore, challenged the said condition by issuing a notice. If the petitioner had any grievance, he ought to have approached the Court immediately which was not done. The petitioner had chosen to remain silent till September 12, 2003 when the present petition was filed by him. Meanwhile, consequential actions were taken by the authorities. At this belated stage, this Court may not interfere with the action by respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 10.Regarding other Districts, it was stated by the deponent that every district has got separate General Manager, who is free to frame terms and conditions for inviting tenders, considering geographical pattern, technical feasibility and financial viability of the project. If certain conditions are relaxed in a particular district, such relaxation cannot be insisted in other districts also. The contention of the petitioner, therefore, that the condition should have been waived or relaxed has no force. It was, therefore, prayed that the petition be dismissed. 11.Respondent No. 4 also filed an affidavit contesting the petition. According to him, he fulfilled the relevant conditions, including Special Condition. He had produced experience certificate "in last financial year" as required, and hence, he was eligible. The case of the petitioner, alongwith other bidders, was considered, but since the petitioner was not found eligible and qualified, his tender form was not considered and his bid was not accepted. Since respondent No. 4 fulfilled all conditions as required by respondent No. 1, his tender was found to be in order and was rightly accepted by respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The allegation of the petitioner that respondent No. 4 was favoured is false, frivolous and mischievous. It was also stated that the tender of respondent No. 4 was accepted on April 10, 2003, and he started the work on April 18, 2003. The petition was filed in September, 2003 i.e. after about five months. The petition, therefore, was liable to be dismissed. 12.Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, in our opinion, the petition deserves to be partly allowed. The petition was filed in September, 2003 i.e. after about five months. The petition, therefore, was liable to be dismissed. 12.Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, in our opinion, the petition deserves to be partly allowed. As already noted earlier, tender form contained certain terms and conditions, including Special Condition, i.e. Condition No. 9 extracted above. 13.We are of the view that the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is well-founded that the phrase "in last financial year" at the end of the sentence, leaves the matter in doubt and is, indeed vague and ambiguous. In the beginning of the sentence, it was stated that the bidders must have done the work of erection. The said condition is relevant, germane and material. It proceeds to state that experience certificate to that effect should be enclosed. This requirement also cannot be objected. Normally, after the words "Experience certificate to this effect should (be) enclosed", the sentence should come to an end. After the word enclosed, the phrase "in last financial year" really does not fit in. The contention of the petitioner is that it had been subsequently added with a view to benefit respondent No. 4. Be that as it may, to us, it is clear that the tender form nowhere mentions as to when the work referred to in the earlier part of the condition has been under taken by the bidder. The last part refers to only enclosure of certificate. Even that part does not specify as to when such a work has been undertaken or completed. 14.The grievance of the petitioner, therefore, in our opinion is right that the condition was not clear. Immediately, therefore on the same day i.e. on March 28, 2003, the petitioner addressed a letter to respondent No. 1 stating that he had not understood Annexure III on page 16 regarding Special Condition of experience certificate, and requested respondent No. 1 to clarify it as early as possible. Unfortunately, however, there was no reply by respondent No. 1. It was also the case of the petitioner that in other districts, no such condition was imposed. 15.In support of the above submission, the learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon Special Conditions in connection with Erection of Transmission Towers and Maintenance Work for BSNL, Pune. Unfortunately, however, there was no reply by respondent No. 1. It was also the case of the petitioner that in other districts, no such condition was imposed. 15.In support of the above submission, the learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon Special Conditions in connection with Erection of Transmission Towers and Maintenance Work for BSNL, Pune. 16.Condition No. 9 for the said work reads: "Essential Qualification:--The tenderer should have done the work of erection of at least 10 Nos. of towers of various sizes allied works in DOT/BSNL/MTNL. Experience certificate to this effect should (be) enclosed." 17.Looking to the condition in the tender form issued by BSNL, Pune, it is clear that experience certificate was required to be enclosed. The so-called requirement "in last financial year" was not mentioned at all. 18.Reference was also made to a similar work undertaken by BSNL for Parbhani. Condition No. 2 required bidders to submit certificates, and one of such certificates related to completion of at least five works "during last three years in Central Government Department/Enterprises". A corrigendum was thereafter issued deleting the requirement of "last three years in Central Government Department/Enterprises". 19.It is, thus, clear that the condition relating to enclosure of certificate "in last financial year" had nothing to do with the work to be given by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and undertaken by tenderers/bidders. 20.To us, therefore, the last part of Special Condition No. 9 relating to enclosure of certificate "in last financial year" has nothing to do with the work to be undertaken by the intending tenderers/bidders. It is also not clear as to whether the enclosure of the said certificate would relate to the work undertaken and completed in the last financial year or the work/project undertaken and completed at any time, but the certificate was issued "in last financial year". 21.In the circumstances, the contention raised and argument advanced, by the learned Counsel for the petitioner deserves to be accepted, and are according accepted by holding that the last part of Condition No. 9 cannot be said to be based on intelligible differentia, which has nexus with the object sought to be achieved, i.e. the work to be undertaken. That part, therefore, must be held arbitrary, irrational and unreasonable. That part, therefore, must be held arbitrary, irrational and unreasonable. The said part, therefore, deserves to be quashed and set aside by directing the respondents not to insist upon the enclosure of certificate of works "in last financial year". It is, however clarified that the requirement relating to erection of at least 10 Nos. of 40 metre towers of various sizes and allied works in DOT/BSNL/MTNL, is legal, valid and in consonance with law. It is further clarified that the requirement of enclosure of certificate(s) is also legal and valid. 22.The question then remains regarding grant of relief to the petitioner. From the record, as well as affidavits-in-reply, it has come on record that tender forms were issued on March 28, 2003. No doubt, on the same day, the petitioner raised a query, and sought clarification regarding Special Condition No. 9 as to enclosure of certificate "in last financial year". It is also clear that by a subsequent communication dated April 10, 2003 (Exhibit G), again clarification was sought. Moreover, the rates quoted by the petitioner were lowest, which was proved when tenders were opened on March 31, 2003. It is further on record that a notice was issued by the petitioner through an Advocate on April 16/17, 2003 and in paragraphs 5 and 6, a grievance was made regarding Special Condition. But it is also true that thereafter, the petitioner did nothing. As per the affidavit of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, tender form of the petitioner was rejected on April 10, 2003 and the tender form of respondent No. 4 was accepted. According to respondent No. 4, his tender was accepted, and work was awarded to him. Respondent No. 4 acted on such acceptance on April 18, 2003 by paying rupees three lakhs as security deposit. The petitioner filed the present petition as late as on September 12, 2003 i.e. almost after five months. 23.In the circumstances, in our opinion, the work, which had already been given by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to respondent No. 4, should not be interfered with now. 24.The learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, stated that respondent Nos. The petitioner filed the present petition as late as on September 12, 2003 i.e. almost after five months. 23.In the circumstances, in our opinion, the work, which had already been given by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to respondent No. 4, should not be interfered with now. 24.The learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, stated that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are likely to issue further work orders to respondent No. 4 on the basis of Special Condition No. 9 relying on and insisting upon the last part ("in last financial year"), and they may be restrained from entering into further contracts or issuing more work orders. The grievance of the petitioner is genuine and well founded. So far as the work, which has already been entrusted by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and undertaken by respondent No. 4 in April, 2003 in pursuance of acceptance of tender on April 10, 2003, is concerned, it is not disturbed. It is open to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to proceed with the said work and to allow respondent No. 4 to complete the work. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are, however, restrained from giving further work on the basis of the Special Condition relating to enclosure of experience certificate "in last financial year" in future. 25.Petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. In the facts and circumstances, however, there shall be no order as to costs. 26.Parties be given copies of this judgment, duly authenticated by the Sheristedar/Private Secretary. Order accordingly. -----