Judgment :- (1). THE West Bengal State Rural development Agency (hereafter the agency), issued notice inviting pre-qualification-cum-tender (two cover system) for Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana, 2005-06 inviting sealed tenders in respect of different works mentioned therein by 24. 8. 06. Separate sealed covers were to be submitted for pre-qualification documents and bid documents. The tender notice further provided that the pre-qualification documents alone would be opened on 25. 8. 06 and that the financial bid documents of the technically qualified bidders would be opened for evaluation and selection of qualified bidders on 15. 9. 06. (2). THE petitioners had submitted an offer in respect of work bearing package No. WB 01 40 along with requisite documents in support of their credentials. It is the case of the petitioners that the sealed covers containing the technical bids were opened on 25.8.06. The petitioner No. 1 was found to be technically qualified. On 15.9.06, the sealed covers containing bid documents were opened. It was found that the petitioner No. 1 was the lowest bidder. Being the lowest bidder, the petitioners expected that the work order would be issued in their favour but since work order was not issued despite requests and reminders, the present petition had been filed praying for a direction upon the respondent authorities to issue letter of acceptance and work order in favour of the petitioner No. 1, and for further direction on the respondents restraining them from notifying the same work for re-tender. (3). THE writ petition was admitted on 22.12.06 and affidavits were called for. (4). DURING the pendency of the writ petition, the respondents invited fresh tender for the work bearing package No. WB 01 40 vide a notice inviting tender dated 9.4.07. Questioning the validity of the said notice, the petitioners filed an application for interim order on 18.4.07. It was prayed for therein that the respondents be directed to cancel the notice inviting tender dated 9.4.07. (5). ON hearing the said application, an interim order was passed granting liberty to the respondents to open the tenders received pursuant to the tender notice dated 9.4.07, but they were restrained from issuing work order in favour of the selected tenderer for a limited period. While hearing of the said application was in progress, parties addressed the Court on the merits of the writ petition. While hearing of the said application was in progress, parties addressed the Court on the merits of the writ petition. The writ petition and the application were heard finally and this Court extended the interim order till delivery of judgment. (6). THE respondents filed an affidavit-in-opposition to the writ petition. In the said affidavit, the respondents have stated in Paragraph-10 that the tender submitted by the petitioner No. 1 stood cancelled as it was disqualified in terms of Paragraph-4.7 of the Standard Bidding Document. Although the decision of the respondents to cancel the tender of the petitioner No. 1 has not been annexed to the said affidavit, the same was placed before this court. The decision taken on 28.3.07 by the Additional Secretary of the agency is to the following effect:-"reference is invited to his note dated 15th March, 2007 in the matter of tender notice issued under srda/n-13/2006 dated 14th June, 2006, SRDA/n-14/2006 dated 26th July, 2006 and SRDA/n-17/2006 dated 16th October, 2006 respectively. It has been decided that work order in favour of M/s. R.K. Sarkar at 5.10% less against Package no. WB1/4 may be issued. Tender submitted by M/s. M and M Associates and Sumi Construction may be cancelled in view of the fact that they are disqualified in terms of para 4.7 of the Standard Bidding Document (SBD ). Similarly, the tender submitted by M/s. A.T. Mondal and Sons against NIT Nos. SRDA/n-13/2006 dated 14th June, 2006, SRDA/n-14/2006 dated 26th July, 2006 and SRDA/n-17/2006 dated 16th October, 2006 for the package Nos. WB 09/38 and WB 02/27 respectively may be cancelled on the same ground. Fresh tender may be invited for the package Nos. WB 09/38 and WB 02/27 respectively." (7). THE question that arises for determination in this writ petition is whether the respondents were justified in canceling the tender of the petitioners by taking recourse to Clause 4.7 of the Standard Bidding Document. Clause 4.7 of the Standard Bidding document reads as under:- "even though the bidders meet the above qualifying criteria, they are subject to be disqualified if they have:-(i) Made misleading or false representations in the forms, statements, affidavits and attachments submitted in proof of the qualification requirements; and / or record of submission of any false / fake document (s). Clause 4.7 of the Standard Bidding document reads as under:- "even though the bidders meet the above qualifying criteria, they are subject to be disqualified if they have:-(i) Made misleading or false representations in the forms, statements, affidavits and attachments submitted in proof of the qualification requirements; and / or record of submission of any false / fake document (s). (ii) Record of poor performance such as abandoning the works, not properly completing the contract, inordinate delays in completion, litigation history, or financial failures etc. (iii) Participated in the previous bidding for the same work and had quoted unreasonably high or low bid prices and could not furnish rational justification for it to the Employer. " (8). THE affidavit filed by the respondents or the decision dated 28.3.07 quoted above do not refer to either sub-clauses (i) or (ii) or (iii) of Clause 4.7, but it refers to Clause 4.7 as a whole. Confronted with the query of Court as to which of the sub-clauses was pressed into service for canceling the tender submitted by the petitioners, it was submitted on behalf of the respondents that the petitioners had on an earlier occasion submitted false/fake documents while participating in a tender and based on a complaint lodged with the police, investigation was conducted, charge-sheet was filed and the partners of the petitioner No. 1 are standing trial before the appropriate Criminal Court. (9). THE aforesaid factual position has not been disputed by Mr. Kundu, learned Counsel for the petitioners. But he contended that on the ground of submission of any false/fake documents in the past, the petitioners could not have been disqualified since their guilt is yet to be proved. It is his contention that having regard to the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent until he is found to be guilty of the offence with which he has been charged, petitioners disqualification on the purported ground during pendency of the criminal proceeding, the conclusion of which is uncertain, would amount to blacklisting them which is absolutely illegal and arbitrary. He submitted that the said clause which has the effect of curtailing the petitioners rights guaranteed by articles 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the constitution of India ought to be struck down. (10). He submitted that the said clause which has the effect of curtailing the petitioners rights guaranteed by articles 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the constitution of India ought to be struck down. (10). LEARNED Junior Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents on the other hand contended before this Court that sub-clause (i) of Clause 4.7 is not under challenge in the writ petition and, therefore, in the absence of such challenge this Court may not interfere with the same. (11). IN reply, it has been contended by Mr. Kundu that the expression "and/or record of submission of any false/fake document (s)" is couched ambiguously and, therefore, the petitioners were misled. He submitted that the word record in the aforesaid expression has to be construed in the light of the words preceding such expression and, therefore, if the petitioners had not submitted any false/fake documents in connection with the subject tender, clause 4.7 (i) could not be invoked and the alleged past conduct of submitting false/fake documents does not afford a valid ground for canceling the tender. He, accordingly, prayed before this court to set aside the decision taken by the respondents canceling the tender of the petitioner No. 1 and for further direction upon them to issue work order in its favour. (12). HAVING heard learned Counsel for the parties and considering the materials-on-record, this Court is of the considered view that this petition cannot succeed in view of absence of any challenge to Clause 4.7 (i) of the standard Bidding Document. The word record as appearing in Clause 4.7 (i) does not admit of any ambiguity and would mean, in the context, a piece of evidence about the past action or previous conduct of a person. Read in its entirety, the relevant clause would read "even though the bidders meet the above qualifying criteria, they are subject to be disqualified if they have record of submission of any false/fake documents." The word record also appears in Clause 4.7 (ii) and there is no reason as to why the same word appearing in two sub-clauses of one particular clause should be given a different meaning. While submitting the tender, the petitioners must have been fully aware of this particular provision in the standard Bidding Document and, consequently, it was incumbent on them to question the validity of such clause, particularly in view of the fact that on a previous occasion a similar clause was pressed into service by the respondents while rejecting the prayer of the petitioners for supply of tender documents (setting aside of such action by this Court because of the particular stage of the process of tender being hardly relevant here). It cannot be lost sight of that the petitioners participated in the tender at the risk of facing disqualification on the ground mentioned in Clause 4.7 (i). The respondents have consistently interpreted the word record in a particular manner and acted accordingly, and without there being a challenge to the validity and propriety of incorporation of such clause in the tender document as a criteria for disqualification, this Court is not called upon to pronounce on this issue. (13). IN such circumstances, the petitioners are not entitled to orders as prayed for. There is no reason to interfere with the decision of the respondents canceling the tender. The writ petition, accordingly, stands dismissed. (14). IN view of the above order, the application for interim order also stands dismissed. (15). THERE shall be no order for costs. (16). SINCE common questions of law and fact are involved in w.P. No. 1732 of 2006 (except the work and package number for which offer was submitted), this judgment shall also govern it as well as the connected application being G.A. No. 1277 of 2007. Later-Prayer has been made for stay of operation of the order. Since the petitioners were enjoying interim order, the prayer is allowed. The order shall remain stayed for a period of ten days from date. All parties are to act on a signed photostat copy of the judgment and/or order on the usual undertaking.