ORDER The petitioner seeks the following prayer: “To issue a writ of mandamus, to forbear the respondents herein from considering the bid of any other tenderer without considering the bid of the petitioner herein as a valid and qualified bid in respect of the work of widening and improving of Kallakurichi-Tiruvannamalai Road from Km 41/3-63/6 in Tiruvannamalai Sub-Division notified in the Tender Notification No. 51/2005/HDO dated 5.12.2005.” 2. The brief facts which are required to be stated are, that pursuant to allotment of a sum of Rs. 700 lakhs for the purpose of widening and improvement of Kallakurichi-Tiruvannamalai road from Km 41/3-63/6 in Tiruvannamalai Sub-Division, tender was invited by the Notification dated 2.5.2005. The petitioner submitted its tender, pursuant to the said Notification. Since the petitioner's bid was rejected, a writ petition came to be filed in W.P. No. 26544 of 2005 for the issuance of a writ of mandamus, to forbear the respondents therein from accepting or confirming any of the bids without considering the bid of the petitioner. In the said writ petition, the learned Special Government Pleader made a representation that the bid of successful bidder was cancelled and that the respondents decided to renotify the tender. Therefore, the very writ petition itself was dismissed as having become infructuous by order dated 29.11.2005. 3. Subsequently, a fresh Notification came to be issued on 5.12.2005. The said Notification was based on Two Cover System with prescribed pre-qualification in the First Cover as per Rule 32 of the Tamil Nadu Tender Transparency Rules, 2000. The relevant minimum criteria for pre-qualification pursuant to the Tender was prescribed in Clause 2.2. 4. When the pre-qualification bids were opened on 23.12.2005, the second respondent informed the petitioner that the petitioner was not qualified since the petitioner had not completed or achieved an average annual turnover over the last 5 years of 40% of the value of the contract or had not completed atleast one contract of 40% of the value within the last 5 years. 5. According to the petitioner, it had satisfied the said qualification. It is contended that after the opening of the financial bid, the petitioner was not invited and it was at that point of time, this writ petition came to be filed. While entertaining this writ petition on 3.2.2006, the confirmation of the bid of other bidders was directed to be withheld. 6. Mr. It is contended that after the opening of the financial bid, the petitioner was not invited and it was at that point of time, this writ petition came to be filed. While entertaining this writ petition on 3.2.2006, the confirmation of the bid of other bidders was directed to be withheld. 6. Mr. Vijay Narayan, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the pre-qualification prescribed under Clause 2.2 read along with the Escalation Clause in Clause 2.3 and the format provided in Application in Form No. 7 which was annexed to the invitation for pre-qualification disclose that the satisfaction in Clause 2.2(ii) would be with reference to the previous completed financial years, viz., 2000-2001 to 2004-2005 in which event, the petitioner duly satisfied the pre-qualification as prescribed under the said Clause and therefore, the rejection of the petitioner's bid at the pre-qualification stage was not justified. 7. By referring to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, the learned senior counsel contended that the contents made in para 7 of the counter affidavit with reference to Clause 2.3 by mentioning the relevant five years in the tabulated format was not as stated in the Tender Notification and therefore, the said statement now made for the first time before this Court cannot be relied upon. The learned counsel also referred to the certificate, dated 23.3.2001 issued by the Divisional Engineer, Tiruvannamalai in support of the petitioner's stand that during one of the preceding five years, the petitioner had successfully completed the contract for the value of 40% and thereby, his eligibility was fully satisfied. 8. As against the above submissions, Mr. A.L. Somayaji, learned Additional Advocate-General by referring to Clauses 2.2(ii), 2.3 and 2.6.1 of the invitation for pre-qualification, contended that the Form prescribed in Application Form No. 7 is referable to ‘Financial Position’ and the same does not relate to Clause 2.2(ii) and therefore, the stand of the respondent that the preceding five years should be counted from the financial year, 2005-2006 only and, not from the completed financial year 2004-2005. According to the learned Additional Advocate-General, if the petitioner's pre-qualification is judged on the above basis, the work done by the petitioner in the year 2000-2001 cannot be taken into account and if that be so, the petitioner failed to satisfy the relevant criteria. According to the learned Additional Advocate-General, if the petitioner's pre-qualification is judged on the above basis, the work done by the petitioner in the year 2000-2001 cannot be taken into account and if that be so, the petitioner failed to satisfy the relevant criteria. The learned Additional Advocate-General also contended that the petitioner's claim that he completed the work as claimed by him related to the year 2000-2001 was not also acceptable and therefore, on that ground as well, the rejection of the petitioner's bid was justified. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and in order to appreciate the respective contentions, it will be appropriate to refer to the following relevant Clauses as found in the "“invitation for pre-qualification”": "“2.1. Qualification Criteria: Pre-qualification will be based on meeting all the following minimum criteria regarding the applicant's general and particular experience, personnel and equipment capabilities and financial position, as demonstrated by the applicant's responses in the Forms attached to the letter of application, sub-contractor's experience and resources shall not be taken into account in determining the applicant's compliance with the qualifying criteria. 2.2. General Experience: The applicant shall meet the following minimum criteria: (i) The applicant in the same name and style should have achieved average annual turnover (defined as billing for works in progress and completed) over the last five years of 40% of the value of contract applied for (Rs. 254.14 lakhs); (ii) The applicant in the same name and style as prime contractor (in Highways/Road works/Railways/Airports Authority of India) should have successfully completed in Highways/the Railways/any Government Departments at least one contract of at least 40% of the value of proposed contract within the last five years; (iii) This experience in similar nature of work should also include the following minimum quantities of work at least in one work during the last five years: 1. Water Bound Macadam: 4907 cu.m. 2. Dense Bituminous Macadam/Bituminous Macadam: 3652 cu.m. 3. Bituminous concrete/SDBC/AC: 62505 sq.m. 4. Vibrated Cement Concrete: 350 cu.m. 2.3. Water Bound Macadam: 4907 cu.m. 2. Dense Bituminous Macadam/Bituminous Macadam: 3652 cu.m. 3. Bituminous concrete/SDBC/AC: 62505 sq.m. 4. Vibrated Cement Concrete: 350 cu.m. 2.3. Escalation: The following enhancement factors shall be used for the costs of works executed and the financial figures to a common base value for works completed in India: Current Multiplying factor Year 1 1.0 Year 2 1.10 Year 3 1.21 Year 4 1.33 Year 5 1.46 The application will indicate actual figure of costs and amounts in the schedule without accounting for the above mentioned factors. Note: Current year means the year corresponding to the date, month and year in which notice inviting tenders for pre-qualification is published. 2.6. Financial Position: 2.6.1. The audited balance sheet for the last five years should be submitted which must demonstrate the soundness of the applicant's financial position, showing long-term profitability, including an estimated financial projection for the next two years. Where necessary, the employer will make inquiries with the applicant's bankers. Application Form No. 7 FINANCIAL STATEMENT: The applicants should provide financial information to demonstrate that they meet the requirements stated in the instructions to applicants, if necessary, use separate sheets to provide complete banker information. A copy of the audited balance sheets should be attached. 1. Name of the applicant: 2. Summary of assets and liabilities on the basis of the audited financial statement of the last five financial years: (Attach copies of the audited, financial statement of the last five financial years. Based upon known commitments, summarise projected assets and liabilities in Indian Rupees for next two years).“ 10. As per the stand of the petitioner, the annual value of construction works undertaken by the petitioner for preceding five years were furnished and the details of which were as under: “General Experience 2.2. Abstract of Annual Turnover as per Auditors Balance Sheet 2000-2001 Rs. 4,99,66,049 2001-2002 Rs. 2,75,58,602 2002-2003 Rs. 3,41,80,927 2003-2004 Rs. 1,66,53,385 2004-2005 Rs. 2,76,62,957 Escalation 2000-2001 : Rs. 4,99,66,049 x 1.46 = Rs. 7,29,50,431.54 2001-2002 : Rs. 2,75,58,602 x 1.33 = Rs. 3,66,43,630.66 2002-2003 : Rs. 3,41,80,921 x 1.21 = Rs. 4,13,58,921.67 2003-2004 : Rs. 1,66,53,385 x 1.10 = Rs. 1,83,18,723.50 2004-2005 : Rs. 2,76,62,957 x 1.00 = Rs. 2,76,62,957.00 ————————— Rs. 19,69,34,664.37 ————————— 5 Rs. 3,93,86,932.87.”" 11. 1,66,53,385 2004-2005 Rs. 2,76,62,957 Escalation 2000-2001 : Rs. 4,99,66,049 x 1.46 = Rs. 7,29,50,431.54 2001-2002 : Rs. 2,75,58,602 x 1.33 = Rs. 3,66,43,630.66 2002-2003 : Rs. 3,41,80,921 x 1.21 = Rs. 4,13,58,921.67 2003-2004 : Rs. 1,66,53,385 x 1.10 = Rs. 1,83,18,723.50 2004-2005 : Rs. 2,76,62,957 x 1.00 = Rs. 2,76,62,957.00 ————————— Rs. 19,69,34,664.37 ————————— 5 Rs. 3,93,86,932.87.”" 11. A reading of Clause 2.1 makes it clear that the applicant's general and particular experience as well as financial position will be taken as demonstrated by the applicant's responses in the Forms attached to the letter of application. The Note to Clause 2.3 makes it clear that the current year means, the year corresponding to the date, month and year in which the notice inviting tenders for pre-qualification was published. The notice was published on 5.12.2005. Therefore, the corresponding current year can only mean the relevant financial year, namely, 2004-2005 since the multiplying factor as provided in Clause 2.3 has to be applied, such application can only relate to a definite and acceptable figure on some basis. In that respect, Clause 2.1 states that the applicant's general and particular experience should be demonstrated in the Forms attached to the letter of application. The Forms which are attached to the letter of application cannot be a Form, which can be the one which is prescribed by the applicant himself. Since the application forms have been annexed to the invitation for pre-qualification in the formats 1-10 and Application Form No. 7 specifically makes a reference to the last five financial years and also states that copies of financial statement should be attached for the last five financial years, the proper way of, interpreting Clause 2.2(h) of invitation for pre-qualification would be; with reference to ‘completed financial years’ for which the applicant can support its claim with appropriate audited financial statement. Any other interpretation would give scope to vagaries and uncertainties which cannot be made. 12. In this context, it will be appropriate to refer to the following decisions, wherein, it has been consistently held that in selecting out of different interpretations, the Court should adopt the one which is reasonable and sensible. Any other interpretation would give scope to vagaries and uncertainties which cannot be made. 12. In this context, it will be appropriate to refer to the following decisions, wherein, it has been consistently held that in selecting out of different interpretations, the Court should adopt the one which is reasonable and sensible. (a) In the judgment Holmes v. Bradfield Rural District Council 1949 (1) All ER 381 at p. 384, it has been held as under: “………The mere fact that the results of a statute may be unjust or absurd does not entitle this Court to refuse to give it effect, but, if there are two different interpretations of the words in an Act, the Court will adopt that which is just, reasonable and sensible rather than that which is none of those things……”" (b) In the judgment Sri Nasiruddin v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal AIR 1976 SC 331 at p.338: 1975 (2) SCC 671 , it has been held as under in para 27: "“27………If the precise words used are plain and unambiguous, they are bound to be construed in their ordinary sense. The mere fact that the results of a statute may be unjust does not entitle a Court to refuse to give it effect. If there are two different interpretations of the words in an Act, the Court will adopt that which is just, reasonable and sensible rather than that which is none of those things. If the inconvenience is an absurd inconvenience, by reading an enactment in its ordinary sense, whereas if it is read in a manner in which it is capable, though not in an ordinary sense, there would not be any inconvenience at all, there would be reason why one should not read it according to its ordinary grammatical meaning. If the inconvenience is an absurd inconvenience, by reading an enactment in its ordinary sense, whereas if it is read in a manner in which it is capable, though not in an ordinary sense, there would not be any inconvenience at all, there would be reason why one should not read it according to its ordinary grammatical meaning. Where the words are plain, the Court would not make any alteration.”" (c) in the judgment in Trent River Authority and Another v. National Coal Board Trent River Authority and Another v. National Coal Board Trent River Authority and Another v. National Coal Board 1970(1) All ER 558 at p. 563 (HL), it has been held as under: "“…..When the statutory words are capable of two meanings, preference should be given to that meaning which produces the more reasonable and just result….”" (d) In the judgment in Madhav Rao Scindia and Others v. Union of India Madhav Rao Scindia and Others v. Union of India Madhav Rao Scindia and Others v. Union of India AIR 1971 SC 530 : 1971 (1) SCC 85 at p. 162, it has been held as under: "“……The Court will interpret a statute as far as possible, agreeably to justice and reason and that in case of two or more interpretations, one which is more reasonable and just will be adopted, for there is always a presumption against the law maker intending injustice and unreason…..”" 13. The contention made on behalf of the respondents that the minimum finance for the preceding five years should commence from 2005 - 2006 would result in a position wherein, there would be no definite acceptable financial statement available which can be produced by any bidder as the Notification was itself dated 5.12.2005 and therefore, any statement would be for an inconclusive period and that would have never been in contemplation when invitation for pre-qualification was made by the respondents. Therefore, I am unable to accept the stand of the respondents as stated in their counter affidavit in para-7 to the effect that the first year referred to in Clause 2.3 is referable to the year 2005-2006. On the other hand, it is referable only to the concluded financial year, namely, 2004-2005 in which event, the petitioner's statement filed along with its bid for the years 2004-2005 ending with 2000-2001 was perfectly in order. On the other hand, it is referable only to the concluded financial year, namely, 2004-2005 in which event, the petitioner's statement filed along with its bid for the years 2004-2005 ending with 2000-2001 was perfectly in order. If the said conclusion is the only possible way of interpreting Clause 2.2(h) read along with Clause 2.3, the petitioner having fully satisfied the criteria, namely, successful completion of one contract of atleast 40% of the value in the last five years, the rejection of the petitioner's bid at the pre-qualification stage was not justified. Therefore, the petitioner's prayer for issuance of the writ as prayed for deserves to be allowed. In the result, the writ petition is allowed directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's bid also before taking any final decision on the Tender notified pursuant to the Tender Notification No. 51/2005/HDO dated 5.12.2005. No costs. Consequently, W.P.M.P. is closed. Petition allowed.