B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THESE two writ petitions are filed assailing the action of the respondents in disqualifying the petitioner-firm from the tender process. W. P. No. 22327 of 2005 relates to tender notification dated 22. 7. 2005 and W. P. No. 22328 of 2005 relates to tender notification dated 12. 7. 2005. ( 2 ) THE petitioner-firm is a registered firm. It undertakes works of steel and iron scrap processing including emergency container management and also transportation of slag and debris etc. The respondents issued open notice No. VSP/wc/ssd/ 55223-0/0/2000-06, dated 22. 7. 2005 inviting pre-qualification for the work of steel and iron scrap processing including emergency container management in VSP (inside the plant ). The respondents also issued open notice No. VSP/wc/ssd/55198- 0/0/2005-06, dated 12. 7. 2005 inviting pre-qualification for the work of central dump processing for the period 2005-08. Under the said open notices 12 pre-qualification criteria are mentioned. The petitioner-firm submitted its pre-qualification bids to 2nd respondent. All the required documents in proof of eligibility of the petitioner were also enclosed. 2nd respondent being satisfied about the eligibility of the petitioner-firm forwarded its applications to 1st respondent along with the applications of others. 1st respondent rejected the applications made by the petitioner-firm on the ground that the petitioner-firm does not satisfy pre-qualification criteria No. 2. Criteria No. 2 in respect of open notice dated 12. 7. 2005 reads as follows: the Tenderer should have executed a single work of similar nature of value not less than Rs. 625 lakhs during the last five years ending 30. 6. 2005. " criteria No. 2 in respect of open notice dated 22. 7. 2005 reads as follows: the Tenderer should have executed a single work of similar nature of value not less than Rs. 786 lakhs during the last five years ending 30. 6. 2005. " since respondents disqualified the petitioner firm on the ground of not satisfying criteria No. 2 of prequalifications, these two writ petitions are filed. ( 3 ) THE respondents filed common counter affidavit for both the writ petitions and it is, in brief, as follows: the petitioner-firm submitted copies of three work orders awarded in its favour by M/s. Jindal Vijayanagar Steel Ltd to satisfy criteria No. 2 referred to in the two notices. The work orders furnished by the petitioner-firm relating to M/s Jindal vijayanagar Steel Ltd are as follows: