ORDER 1. The Petitioner is aggrieved with the decision of the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 holding the Petitioner ineligible under Condition No. 21.1 of the bid document and excluding it from the tender process from the stage of opening of technical bid. 2. The brief facts are that the Respondent Indore Development Authority had published NIT in the local newspaper for construction of a railway Overbridge on Western Ring Road, R W-2, Indore under the JNNURM scheme. Petitioner had submitted the tender in pursuance to the NIT. The bids were required to be submitted in 3 envelopes, i.e. the 1st envelope containing the earnest money as per norms; 2nd envelope containing the technical bid; and 3rd envelope containing the financial bid. If after opening of the 1st envelope bidder was found eligible, the 2nd envelope containing the technical bid was to be opened and if the technical bid, after due scrutinization was qualified, the financial bid containing in 3rd envelope was to be opened. 3. Total 7 tenders were received by Respondent No. 1-Indore Development Authority including the tender submitted by the Petitioner which is a Private Limited Company. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner had qualified in terms of the earnest money as per norms and accordingly Petitioner's technical bid was opened along with technical bids of other tenderers. The Tender Committee of Indore Development Authority after scrutiny rejected the technical bid submitted by the Petitioner and hence their financial bid was not opened. 4. The Petitioner when came to know about rejection of its technical bid, approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. The Respondent -Indore Development Authority by its reply has placed on record that the technical bid submitted by the Petitioner was rejected because they failed to fulfil the Condition No. 21.1 of Chapter 1 of the tender document. It was contended that Petitioner was found ineligible under the said condition because they had formed one Partnership Firm with one another Company called M/s. S.P. Singla Constructions Pvt. Ltd. and the Petitioner as well as M/s. S.P. Singla Constructions Pvt. Ltd. both had submitted their individual tenders. It was for this reason both were held ineligible in terms of Condition No. 21.1. It was for this reason both were held ineligible in terms of Condition No. 21.1. Since after rejection of the technical bid of the Petitioner, the financial bid was opened in which the Respondent No. 3 was likely to be awarded the contract, therefore, in the writ petition, Petitioner claimed relief of quashing the tender process from the stage of opening of the technical bid and sought further direction to restrain the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 from finalizing the tender of the Respondent No. 3. This Court on 9.9.2008 had passed interim order directing that any action by the Respondents in furtherance of the project in question will abide by the final decision of the writ petition. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner has wrongly been held ineligible under Condition No. 21.1. He submitted that the Petitioner had submitted only one bid in response to NIT, therefore, the Petitioner cannot be held ineligible by taking recourse to Condition No. 21.1 of tender document. 6. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submitted that the Petitioner Company had formed a partnership firm with another Company-called M/s. S.P. Singla Constructions Pvt. Ltd. and since both the partners of the firm, namely Petitioner and M/s. S.P. Singla Constructions had submitted their respective tenders and, therefore, both were held ineligible under Condition No. 21.1. Learned Counsel further submitted that object of inserting Condition No. 21.1 is to prevent forming cartel in tender process and title in this case. It was found that these 2 Companies are forming cartel and hence their tenders were held ineligible. 7. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 3 submitted that the decision of the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 does not suffer from any error and the Petitioner is rightly held ineligible in terms of Condition No. 21.1. lie further submitted that such condition has been incorporated to prevent formation of cartel by the bidders. 8. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. The sole issue that arises for consideration is as to whether the Petitioner has rightly been held ineligible under Condition No. 21.1 of the tender document. 9. The Condition No. 21.1 around which the entire controversy revolves reads as under: One Bid per Bidder 21.1. A JV/Consortium, an individual company, shall submit only one bid for the work. The sole issue that arises for consideration is as to whether the Petitioner has rightly been held ineligible under Condition No. 21.1 of the tender document. 9. The Condition No. 21.1 around which the entire controversy revolves reads as under: One Bid per Bidder 21.1. A JV/Consortium, an individual company, shall submit only one bid for the work. An individual company JV/Consortium or their partner which submits or participate in more than one bid, will cause all the proposals in which bidder has participated will be disqualified. 10. A perusal of the condition would indicate that the condition is lacking in clarity. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has also admitted that the condition is not happily worded. The object of the condition is to permit "one bid per bidder" and from the language of condition it can be gathered that if a Company, Joint Venture or Consortium or their partner submit more than one bid, then all bids by such bidder will be disqualified. The word "their partner" mentioned in the condition relate to Joint Venture and Consortium which apart from their own separate entity can also have partners in them. 11. It cannot be disputed that the Indore Development Authority can exclude any class of bidder from participating in the bid for valid reasons. But if there is an exclusion clause included in the tender document in relation to particular class of bidders, then the exclusion should be clearly spelt out in the clause. In other words, the exclusion clause should in clear terms provide as to which class of bidders are not eligible or in what eventuality a bidder will be disqualified in submitting the tender. 12. On the perusal of Condition No. 21.1, we find that in the said condition, it has not been clearly spelt out that if two companies who have formed a partnership firm for some other purpose, bid for the tender in their individual capacity but no bid is submitted by the partnership firm formed by the 2 Companies than bid of the individual companies will be rejected or in other words both such companies will be held ineligible for participation in the tender process. If the tender condition is worded vaguely, or if it has any ambiguity, then the benefit of vagueness or ambiguity cannot be given to the Indore Development Authority who framed the condition but has to be given to the bidder who has responded to NIT and submitted the bid. Vagueness or ambiguity in a condition cannot be used as a tool by the authority to exclude any bidders and restrict the competition in tender process. 13. The Respondent No. 1 has held that the Petitioner as well as M/s. S.P. Singla Constructions Pvt. Ltd. i.e. another bidder are ineligible under Condition No. 21.1 on the premise that both are partners in a Partnership Firm M/s. S.P. Singla Constructions created for some other business on 14.6.2003 almost 5 years prior to submitting the present bid by the 2 Companies. 14. It is worth noting that the Petitioner as well as M/s. S.P. Singla Constructions Pvt. Ltd., are separate companies registered under the Indian Companies Act and both had submitted one bid each in their individual capacity in the name of their respective company. No bid was submitted by the Partnership firm "M/s. S.P. Singla Constructions" formed by them. By forming a Partnership Firm for some other business by a separate name, and identity they had not lost their entity as company. When the bids were submitted by these two companies in their, individual capacity and the partnership firm formed by them was not present before the Indore Development Authority in any capacity, much less in the capacity of bidder, then in such event the condition of one bid per bidder was satisfied by the Petitioner so also by another Company-M/s. S.P. Singla Constructions Pvt. Ltd. 15. If along with the Petitioner and M/s. S.P. Singla Constructions Pvt. Ltd., the partnership firm had also submitted the bid, then it would have been a case of submission of more than "one bid per bidder", and in such case, Indore Development Authority would have been justified in disqualifying the Petitioner so also other Company on the ground that they had submitted more than one bid i.e. one bid in the name of a company and another in the name of partnership firm. But in the present case since the partnership firm did not submit any bid, and hence it cannot be said that the bid submitted by the Petitioner was more than one bid. But in the present case since the partnership firm did not submit any bid, and hence it cannot be said that the bid submitted by the Petitioner was more than one bid. 16. The Respondents being State is required to act fairly while awarding the contract. By excluding two bidders in one stroke by taking recourse to Condition No. 21.1, the scope of competition has been narrowed down which may defeat the object of the healthy competition in any tender process rather than to satisfy the object of the clause. The case specifically set up by the Petitioner in the writ petition is that its bid was lower than the Respondent No. 3. Therefore, such an exclusion, which is even otherwise not in accordance with the tender document, results in loss to State exchequer. We do not wish to go into this question because it is for the Respondent No. 1 to examine this issue when tender of Petitioner is considered on its merit along with other eligible tenders. 17. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the writ petition filed by the Petitioner is allowed by issuing following directions by way of certiorari and mandamus against Respondent Nos. 1 and 2: (i) The decision of the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 holding the Petitioner ineligible under Condition No. 21.1 is set aside. It is held that Petitioner is eligible to submit the tender. (ii) Any subsequent action taken by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 from the stage of opening of the technical bid till the passing of this order is also set aside. (iii) The Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to reconsider the eligible bids including the bid of the Petitioner treating them to be eligible in submission of tender and then consider their tender from the stage of opening of the technical bid along with all other eligible tenders and then award the contract to a person whose tender is found most appropriate in accordance with law. 18. No order as to costs.