Judgment ( 1. ) BY filing this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of india the petitioner has called in question the acceptance of tender of the second respondent by the Municipal Corporation, Singrauli on the ground that on the date of submission of tender the second respondent was lacking fundamental qualification of being registered as grade-II contractor. ( 2. ) BRIEFLY stated, on 29-9-2005 the Municipal Corporation issued a notice inviting tender for construction of PCC road under ayodhya Basti development Scheme. In the notice the tenders were invited from the contractors registered in grade-II or above. The petitioner stated that on 19-10-2005, the last date of submission of tender, the second respondent was not registered in grade A-II. It was registered as grade-II contractor only on 20-10-2005, in the circumstances the Municipal Corporation committed error in opening its technical and financial bids and further erred in approving its offer and issuing work order. ( 3. ) IN the return the Municipal Corporation stated that the second respondent was registered contractor of grade A-I. Its application for up-gradation to grade A-II was allowed by the Commissioner, Municipal corporation, Singrauli on 5-10-2005. It is further stated that on 19-10-2005 the second respondent made an application stating that it will produce the certificate of registration in grade A-II before opening of the technical bids. Thereafter on 20-10-2005 the second respondent deposited the requisite amount and got registered in A-II category, and prior to opening of the technical bids it submitted the requisite certificate of its registration in grade A-II. In the circumstances it is stated that the bid of the second respondent was rightly opened and it being lowest the work order in its favour has been issued. ( 4. ) SHRI R. K. Samaiya, learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that as per the first paragraph of the notice, tenders were invited upto 19-10-2005, only from those contractors who are registered in the grade A-II or above. It is only if a person was registered in the category of A-II or above he could, on the terms of first paragraph of the notice submit a tender. This being the condition precedent of eligibility which had to be satisfied by every person submitting a tender and if a person submitting a tender did not satisfy the condition, his tender was not eligible to be considered. This being the condition precedent of eligibility which had to be satisfied by every person submitting a tender and if a person submitting a tender did not satisfy the condition, his tender was not eligible to be considered. He further drawn attention to the condition No. 3 of the tender requiring the submission of valid registration certificate along with tender form. It is further contended that by allowing the second respondent who was not contractor of grade A-II to get it registered and to submit the registration certificate on 20-10-2005 after the last date of submission of tender, the Municipal Corporation has rendered the terms of the notice inviting tender meaningless and futile. ( 5. ) SHRI Anshuman Singh and Shri Sudeep Chatterjee, learned counsel appearing for the respondents supported the action of the respondents 1 and 3 and stated that on 20-10-2005, the date of opening of technical bid, the petitioner was registered as A-II grade contractor, in the circumstances, the opening of its technical bid cannot be said to be unjustified. It is further stated that thereafter in the financial bid the second respondent being lowest, its bid was accepted. They also contended that in the matter of award of contract substantial elbow room is to be given to select the most suitable from amongst the available tenders without there being any arbitrariness or bias. It is also contended that the petitioner has no fundamental right to enter into contractual relationship with the Government and the respondents having acted fairly and in an absolutely unbiased manner, no case is made out for interference. ( 6. ) ADMITTEDLY the tenders were called from the contractors registered in grade A-II or above. The tender was to be submitted upto 19-10-2005. The case of the second respondent for upgrading it from grade A-I to the grade of a-II contractor though approved on 5-10-2005 but the registration in grade A-II was done on 20-10-2005. The registration certificate issued on 20-10-2005 finds mention that the same will be effective from the date of its issuance (emphasis supplied ). In the circumstances, the second respondent though registered in a-II grade on 20-10- 2005 prior to consideration of his technical bid but it was not a registered contractor in that grade on 19-10-2005 which was the last date of submission of tender. In the circumstances, the second respondent though registered in a-II grade on 20-10- 2005 prior to consideration of his technical bid but it was not a registered contractor in that grade on 19-10-2005 which was the last date of submission of tender. Using of the expression in the notice Annexure P/1 that the tenders are invited upto 19-10-2005 from contractors registered in grade a-II or above makes it clear that by using this expression, the Municipal corporation intended to delineate a certain category of persons who alone should be eligible to submit a tender. The use of the said expression was having certain aims and any other interpretation suggested by the learned Counsel for the respondents by which allowing person not falling in the said category to submit tender would render the aforesaid notice meaningless. The first paragraph of the notice prescribed condition of eligibility which was required to be satisfied by every contractor submitting a tender. A contractor who was not registered A-II contractor on the last date of submission of tender and who having failed to file certificate of registration along with the tender document cannot be allowed to participate in the tender, even on the basis of his subsequent registration in that category and prior to opening of the technical bid. In such matters only clerical, minor or arithmetical mistakes could be rectified but when a condition precedent which is fundamental in nature is not complied with, the tender of such tenderer cannot be considered. Having registration in grade A-II and filing of registration certificate for submitting the tender was the fundamental condition of the tender. It is not in dispute that the second respondent was not registered in category A-II till 19-10-2005. The condition being essential and being clearly expressed in the notice inviting tender, the Municipal Corporation could not have transgressed the same and entertain the tender which was incomplete. If the employer or owner is allowed to condone such conditions there would be possibility of arbitrariness in every tender process. As already pointed out the matter would have been different if mere clerical or arithmetical error has been crept in and has been condoned. ( 7. ) IN view of the aforesaid it is clear that the Municipal Corporation has deviated from the fundamental condition in regard to the eligibility fixed in the notice. As already pointed out the matter would have been different if mere clerical or arithmetical error has been crept in and has been condoned. ( 7. ) IN view of the aforesaid it is clear that the Municipal Corporation has deviated from the fundamental condition in regard to the eligibility fixed in the notice. Since the second respondent did not satisfy the requirement of the notice it was not competent for the Municipal Corporation to entertain its tender. Therefore, the decision of the Municipal Corporation cannot be sustained. ( 8. ) ACCORDINGLY, the decision of the Municipal Corporation allowing the tender of the second respondent and consequent issuance of the work order in its favour are liable to be quashed and are hereby quashed. ( 9. ) THE second respondent shall be entitled to get the payments of the work done by it up till now. So far as the balance work the Municipal Corporation may consider the petitioner tender being the next lowest and for that may call it for negotiation. The petition is allowed. No orders as to costs. C. C. within three days. Writ Petition allowed.