Judgment Shantanu Kemkar, J. ( 1. ) The petitioner a private limited company engaged in the business of civil construction works has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the action on the part of the respondent Municipality Sanawad in not accepting its technical bid on the ground of non fulfillment of the eligibility criteria and is seeking direction to the respondent to open its financial bid. ( 2. ) Pursuant to the notice inviting, tender (Annexure P/2) issued by the respondent, published on 14.01.08, for awarding the work of construction of water supply project of the respondent including construction of intact wells, treatment plant, installation and erection of turbine pumping sets, the petitioner submitted its bid. ( 3. ) On 18.02.08 all the bidders including the petitioner attended the pre-bid meeting convened by the respondent. In the said meeting the representative of the petitioner who attended the meeting was informed by the respondent that the petitioners bid would be liable to be rejected for not holding the minimum experience required in the condition no.4 of the eligibility criteria fixed in the tender document. Thereafter on 04.03.08 it was orally informed to the petitioners representative that the petitioners bid has been rejected. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner has filed this petition. ( 4. ) The case of the petitioner is that its representative explained to the respondent that the petitioner is not lacking the experience and fully satisfies the eligibility criteria. He on the basis of the various documents submitted along with the bid, explained that the petitioner has purchased the partnership firm M/s. Agrawal Brothers of which the experience certificate has been filed. It was also made clear that earlier the Directors of the petitioner company were partners of the firm M/s. Agrawal brothers. In the circumstances the experience of the said firm of which a certificate has been filed entitles the petitioner to claim the eligibility of experience. Immediately after the pre bid meeting the petitioner also submitted a letter on 20.02.09 (Annexure P/5) to the respondent clarifying and substantiating its plea about the experience. ( 5. ) It is averred in the petition that the decision of the respondent in ousting the petitioner from the zone of consideration inspite of petitioners fulfilling and satisfying the eligibility criteria is arbitrary and unfair. ( 5. ) It is averred in the petition that the decision of the respondent in ousting the petitioner from the zone of consideration inspite of petitioners fulfilling and satisfying the eligibility criteria is arbitrary and unfair. According to the petitioner before incorporation of the company the Directors of the petitioner were working in the name of (1) M/s.Tejas Construction and (2) M/s. Agrawal Brothers. Both these firms were partnership firms consisting of family members of the Directors of the petitioner company. In the month of June 2007 the firm M/s. Tejas Construction was converted into the petitioner company namely M/s. Tejas Construction and Infrastructure Private Limited. On such conversion the firm M/s. Tejas Construction got dissolved. Thereafter on 01.10.07 another partnership firm which was being run by the Directors of the petitioner company in the name of M/s. Agrawal Brothers was purchased by the petitioner company through sale deed dated 01.10.07 (Annexure P/4). In the said sale deed it was specifically mentioned that the partnership firm M/s. Agrawal Brothers and all its partners shall allow the petitioner company to submit all the experience certificates gained by the partnership firm through various contracts. It was also made clear and agreed in the sale deed that the firm M/s . Agrawal Brothers shall surrender all its original certificates and shall not use the same for bidding any tender. As regards dissolution of the firm M/s. Agrawal Brothers it was clarified in the sale de.ed that the same would not be immediately possible in view of the fact of having contracts in hand and the payments are to be received in the name of the partnership firm. However it was made clear in the sale deed that the firm M/s. Agrawal Brothers shall not participate any more in the tender process. It is further case of the petitioner that inspite of these documents being filed along with bid documents and also the letter dated 20.02.08 (Annexure P/5) the respondent proceeded to reject the petitioners bid for non fulfillment of the experience criteria. ( 6. ) The respondent in its return raised preliminary objection staling therein that the petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. According to the respondent the petition lias been filed after opening of the financial bids of other bidders and therefore it was already infructuous when it was filed. ( 6. ) The respondent in its return raised preliminary objection staling therein that the petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. According to the respondent the petition lias been filed after opening of the financial bids of other bidders and therefore it was already infructuous when it was filed. On merits, it has been stated in the return that the petitioner is claiming experience in view of the sale deed executed in its favour by M/s. Agrawal Brothers. Whereas, the certificate of experience filed along with the bid is in the name of M/s. Agrawal Brothers Engineers and Contractors, Chalisgaon. It is further stated that the sale deed being not a registered sale deed the same has rightly been ignored by the respondent. It is also averred that the petitioner having not submitted the dissolution deeds of M/s. Agrawal Brothers and M/s. Tejas Construction it has rightly been declared disqualified for opening of its financial bid. ( 7. ) Shri Ajay Bagadiya learned counsel for the petitioner argued that in view of the Judgment of this Court passed in case of M/s. C.K. Asati v. Union of India and two others ( AIR 2005 MP 96 ), the experience claimed by the petitioner through M/s. Agrawal Brothers could not have been ignored by the respondent. He further argued that there is no discrepancies in the certificate filed by the petitioner and the sale deed as there is only one firm which is partnership firm in the name of M/s. Agrawal Brothers in Chalisgaon of which the sale deed and the certificate has been filed. The certificate in the name of M/sl Agrawal Brothers Engineers and Contractors, Chalisgaon has been issued by none other then the firm M/s. Agrawal Brothers of which purchase was made by the petitioner through sale deed. The respondent if, had any doubt about the difference in the names shown in the sale deed and the experience certificate it was incumbent upon the respondent to call the petitioner seeking explanation about it instead of out rightly rejecting the petitioners technical bid. According to him such a hyper-technical approach on the part of the respondent is unfair and arbitrary exercise of powers. According to him such a hyper-technical approach on the part of the respondent is unfair and arbitrary exercise of powers. He submitted that the inability on the part of the petitioner to submit the dissolution deed of firm M/s. Agrawal Brothers was duly explained both in the sale deed as well as in the letter dated 20.02.08 (Annexure P/5). However the same has been completely ignored by the respondent just to oust the petitioner from the tender process. He further submitted that there is no requirement of the sale deed to be registered as his been stated by the respondent. According to him in the absence of any objection to that effect from any of the partners of M/s. Agrawal Brothers such a plea at the instance of the respondent was not justified. He also pointed out that the respondent has not disputed the petitioners averment that there is no other Firm except M/s, Agrawal Brothers in Chalisgaon of whom the petitioner is claiming the experience. As regards the non submission of the dissolution deed of M/s. Tejas Construction, the document of incorporation of petitioner was submitted fulfilling the requirement. ( 8. ) Shri Vivek Dalai, learned counsel appearing for the respondent on the other hand supported the decision of the respondent and the stand taken in the return. Accordingly to him on the basis of unregistered sale deed the petitioner cannot claim any right to consider its claim in regard to the experience. He argued that the petitioner claimed experience of the firm M/s. Agrawal Brothers whereas the experience certificate which was submitted is of M/s. Agrawal Brothers Engineers and Contractors, Chalisgaon. In the circumstances the action of the respondent was perfectly justified. He placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Poddar Steel Corporation v. M/s. Ganesh Engineering Works ( AIR 1991 SC 1579 ) to contend that the petitioner having failed to fulfill the essential condition of eligibility the respondent has rightly rejected its technical bid. He finally argued that since the petitioner failed to submit the dissolution deeds the respondent rightly rejected the petitioners bid. ( 9. He finally argued that since the petitioner failed to submit the dissolution deeds the respondent rightly rejected the petitioners bid. ( 9. ) So far as the preliminary objection raised by the respondent about the delay and latches and the petition was being infructuous at the time of its filing, it is clear from the record that on 18.02.08 the pre-bid meeting was held by the respondent. It is revealed from the decision (Annexure R/3) of the tender evaluation committee that on the request of one of the bidders H.L.Passey Hytro-Tech the date of submission of tenders was extended upto 04.03.08. On 04.03.08 the petitioner was orally informed about the rejection of its tender. Having received this information the petitioner promptly filed this petition on 14.03.08. On 02.04.08 this Court passed interim order directing the respondent not to finalize the bids received pursuant to the notice inviting tenders. In the circumstances there is no delay on the part of the petitioner in filing this petition and also the petition cannot be said to be a infruetuous petition. The preliminary objection of the respondent is wholly misconceived and is accordingly rejected. ( 10. ) Having gone through the documents filed by the parties I find that the petitioner along with its technical bid submitted the sale deed, the experience certificate and also the documents in regard to its incorporation. From the documents it is also revealed that earlier the petitioner was working in the name of M/s. Tejas Construction and M/s. Agrawal Brothers. Firstly in June 2007 M/s. Tejas Construction was converted into the petitioner company. Thereafter the firm M/s. Agrawal Brothers was purchased by the petitioner through the aforesaid sale deed. The petitioner placing reliance on the sale deed, the experience certificate and the explanation submitted vide letter dated 20.02.08 claimed experience as required in the eligibility criteria. It is not the case of the respondent that the experience certificate submitted by the petitioner is lacking with any requirement of the experience. It is also not the case of the respondent that the experience gained by the Directors of the petitioner company as partners of M/s. Agrawal Brothers cannot be taken into consideration but the case of the respondent is that the certificate submitted by the petitioner is not in the name of M/s. Agrawal Brothers but is in the name of M/s. Agrawal Brothers Engineers and Contractors, Chalisgaon. When there is no rebuttal or denial on the part of the respondent to the contention and the pleadings of the petitioner that there is no partnership firm in the name of M/s. Agrawal Brothers Engineers and Contractors, Chalisgaon and there is only one firm which is M/s. Agrawal Brothers of which the petitioner is claiming experience and had filed the experience certificate the rejection of the said experience certificate by raising such a hyper-technical plea that too for the first time in return cannot be said to be justified. In the circumstances the petitioner who is having the requisite experience cannot be adjudged disqualified for non fulfillment of eligibility criteria of experience. From the aforesaid discussion it is clear that the rejection of the petitioners technical bid is not for non fulfillment of essential condition about experience but the rejection as noticed above is for the reason that the experience certificate is not in the name of M/s. Agrawal Brothers. As already observed this reason is totally arbitrary, baseless and hyper technical. ( 11. ) The petitioner having duly explained the circumstances under which the deed of dissolution could not be submitted by stating that the dissolution of M/s: Agrawal Brothers is not immediately possible in view of the works in hand and payments to be received, the rejection of the petitioners bid on this ground is misconceived and is arbitrary exercise of powers. Moreover when it was specifically stated in the sale deed that M/s. Agrawal Brothers shall not participate any more in the tender process and shall not use the certificates in bidding any tender there was absolutely no justification on the part of the respondent to have insisted for submitting the dissolution deed. The respondent by not considering the reasons assigned by the petitioner for non submission of the dissolution deed in respect of M/s. Agrawal Brothers and ignoring the documents establishing the dissolution of M/s. Tejas Construction have acted in most arbitrary manner and treated the petitioner unfairly. The non consideration of the sale deed submitted by the petitioner on the ground of it being not registered sale deed is also unjustified, more particularly in view of the fact that there was no dispute in that regard between the partners and the partners of the M/s. Agrawal Brothers are the Directors of the petitioner company. ( 12. The non consideration of the sale deed submitted by the petitioner on the ground of it being not registered sale deed is also unjustified, more particularly in view of the fact that there was no dispute in that regard between the partners and the partners of the M/s. Agrawal Brothers are the Directors of the petitioner company. ( 12. ) The action on part of the respondent in ignoring the sale deed, the explanation offered by the petitioner and taking decision by adopting a hyper-technical approach, in my considered view, is arbitrary and irrational. The respondent is governed by the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution which excludes arbitrariness in state action and requires to act fairly and reasonably. It is true that the government must have freedom of contract and a fair play in the joints. is a necessary concomitant for an administrative body. However, the decision must not only be tested by the application of Wednesbury principle of reasonableness but must be free from arbitrariness not affected by bias or actuated by malafides. [See New Horizons Ltd/and another v. Union of India and others 1995(1)SCC 478]. ( 13. ) In view of the aforesaid, the decision of the respondent to hold the petitioner disqualified by adopting a hyper technical approach is unfair, arbitrary and unreasonable and as such cannot be sustained. ( 14. ) Accordingly the petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. As a result the respondent is directed to treat the petitioner eligible for opening its technical bid. The respondent is further directed to open the petitioner financial bid and thereafter proceed further in the matter for award of the contract to the bidder who may be found eligible. No order as to costs. Petition allowed.