JUDGMENT L. MOHAPATRA, J. : The petitioners in this writ application challenges the legality of the order rejecting the tender submit¬ted by them for allotment of Mural Depiction work at Puri Railway Station pursuant to the tender call notice dated 31.3.2004 in Annexure-1 and for a further direction to accept the tender sub¬mitted by them and allot the work in their favour. 2. Petitioner No.1 is a studio and petitioner No.2 is the proprietor of the said studio. Pursuant to an advertisement inviting tenders by the opposite parties 1 to 3 for the aforesaid work at Puri Railway Station, the petitioners submitted their tender. The tender value was Rs.10,00,000/- (Ten lakhs) and the date of opening of the tender was fixed to 21st May, 2004. The opposite party No.4 was one of the tenderers. On 21st May, 2004 when the tenders were opened it was found that the petitioners were lowest having quoted Rs. 9,50,000/- whereas the opposite party No.4 had quoted Rs.12,00,000/- (twelve lakhs). The peti¬tioners were thereafter called for negotiation and were asked to visit Patna Railway Station to study the mural work done there and was asked to extend the validity of their offer till 17.10.2004. However, on the request of the opposite parties 1 to 3, the petitioners extended the validity of their officer till 16th December, 2004. While the petitioners were expecting that work to be allotted in their favour, opposite party No.3 who is Head of the Tender Committee wrote a letter to the petitioner No.2 on 22nd November, 2004 asking him for production of his credentials. In response to the said letter, a reply was given on 1.12.2004 clarifying therein that the petitioners met all the eligibility criteria fixed by the opposite parties 1 to 3 in the tender notice. However, the work was not allotted to the petitioners and the same was allotted to opposite party No.4 on the ground that the petitioners do not fulfill the eligibility criteria. 3. Shri Narasingha, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners drew attention of the Court to the tender notice and submitted that the eligibility criteria which is stated not to have been fulfilled by the petitioners applies to the work above Rs.10,00,000/- (ten lakh), and therefore, the tender submitted by the petitioners could not have been ignored on that ground. 4. Shri Narasingha, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners drew attention of the Court to the tender notice and submitted that the eligibility criteria which is stated not to have been fulfilled by the petitioners applies to the work above Rs.10,00,000/- (ten lakh), and therefore, the tender submitted by the petitioners could not have been ignored on that ground. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite parties 1,2,3 and 5 wherein it is stated that as per the advertisement the tenderer should invariably possess experience in mural depiction work either in Railways or in any organization to the tune of Rs.3.5 lakhs and the proof thereof has to be en¬closed with the tender bid. The petitioners had submitted certif¬icates, which under no stretch of imagination can be called to be experience certificates issued by any organization and, there¬fore, the tender submitted by the petitioners could not be ac¬cepted. 5. This being the only question raised in the writ appli¬cation, we think it proper to examine the conditions imposed in the tender call notice so far as eligibility criteria is con¬cerned. Admittedly, the value of the tender is Rs.10 lakhs and the work in question finds place at serial No.2 in the tender call notice under the heading “depiction work”. For the work in question the tenderer should have completed in the last three financial years including the current year at least one similar work for a minimum value of 35% of Advertised tender value of work. The said condition otherwise means that the tenderer of the said work should have completed at least one similar single work for the minimum value of Rs.3.5 lakhs. Condition No.3 further prescribes that the total contract amount received during the last three years and in the current financial year should be minimum of 150% of the Advertised Tender value which comes to Rs.15 lakhs. However, the note appended to the instructions to tenders further prescribes that in case of the above, supportive documents/certificates from the organizations with whom the ten¬derers worked should be enclosed and certificates from private individuals for whom such works were executed shall not be ac¬cepted. The petitioners have submitted the certificates,support¬ing their claim that they satisfy the eligibility criteria, ob¬tained from Institute of Physics, May Fair Beach Resort, Puri, May Fair Hotels and Resort Private Ltd. and Zimmermann Company Private Limited. The petitioners have submitted the certificates,support¬ing their claim that they satisfy the eligibility criteria, ob¬tained from Institute of Physics, May Fair Beach Resort, Puri, May Fair Hotels and Resort Private Ltd. and Zimmermann Company Private Limited. The certificate issued by the Institute of Physics on 14th May, 2004 certifies that the petitioners had completed work in their Auditorium for value of Rs.2.75 lakhs. Two certificates have been issued by May Fair Beach Resort. One certificate issued on 17th May, 2004 certifies the completion of work worth Rs.1.35 lakhs and the other certificate which does not bear any date issued by May Fair Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. satisfies that the petitioners had completed the work worth Rs.3,72,000/- (three lakh seventy two thousand) in May, 2003 and also work value of Rs.30,000/- (thirty thousand) in August, 2003. The certificate issued by Zimmermann Co. Private Ltd satisfies that the petitioners had executed the work for the organization in October, 2003 for an amount of Rs.42,000/- (forty two thou¬sand) and a similar certificate has also been issued by the said company certifying that the petitioner had executed work of Rs.28,000/- (twenty eight thousand) in the month of May, 2002. According to the petitioners the certificates issued by May Fair Beach Resort Pvt. Ltd. stating therein that the petitioner had completed one work for Rs.3.72 lakhs in May, 2003 satisfies one condition of the eligibility criteria and the third condition is also satisfied taking into consideration all the certificates which otherwise prove that the petitioners had completed the work of Rs.15 lakhs in the preceding three years. The learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties 1 to 3 submitted that the Institute of Physics is an organization but May Fair Hotel Re¬sorts and Zimmerman Co. Private Ltd. cannot be accepted as organ¬izations and, therefore, they are treated as individuals and the certificates issued by them have not been accepted. Now the only question that requires consideration is as to whether the certif¬icates issued by May Fair Beach Resort, Puri, May Fair Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. and Zimmermann Company Private Limited are to be treated as certificates issued by the orgaizations or not. There is no dispute that May Fair Beach Resort Pvt. Ltd., Puri as well as Zimmermann Company Private Limited are two private limit¬ed companies and can never be termed as individuals. There is no dispute that May Fair Beach Resort Pvt. Ltd., Puri as well as Zimmermann Company Private Limited are two private limit¬ed companies and can never be termed as individuals. A private company is formed by a group of individuals and the certificate issued by such company cannot be treated as a certificate issued by an individual. We, are therefore of the view that rejection of the certificates issued by the May Fair Beach Resorts Pvt. Ltd. as well as Zimmermann Co. Private Ltd company Pvt.Ltd. is not legal and proper. It appears that the tender process though has been taken up, the work order has not been issued in view of the interim order passed by this Court on 18.2.2005. 6. We, therefore, dispose of the writ application direct¬ing the opposite parties 1 to 3 to consider the tender submitted by the petitioners along with others and take a decision regard¬ing allotment of work to one of the tenders. The certificates issued by May Fair Beach Resort, Puri,May Fair Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Ltd.and Zimmermann Company Private Limited should be treated as certificates issued by organizations and accordingly the tender of the petitioners should be processed for consideration. M. M. DAS, J. I agree. Application disposed of.