Judgment A.K. SIKRI, J. CM No.1120 of 2013 Exemption as prayed for is allowed. CM is disposed of. CM No.1121 of 2013 Written statement filed by the respondent is taken on record. CM is disposed of. The respondent, namely, Pungrain Food Civil Supplies and Consumers Affairs, Punjab, invited tenders for disposal of damaged food grains declared fit for Feed Gr.1/Feed Gr.11/Feed Gr.111/Industrial Manure use and below 'D' category wheat lying at various centres of the State Agency godowns vide tender notice No. AS-2-2011 dated 26.9.2012. The last date for submitting the tender was 26.9.2012 and the bids up to 1 p.m. These bids were to be opened on the same day at 3.00 p.m. The bids were in two part of the process i.e. technical bid and financial bid. First technical bids were to be opened and those qualifying technical bid, were entitled to get their financial bid opened. Insofar as the technical specifications contained in the said NIT are concerned, these included valid registration regarding manufacturing of cattle feed (feed-II). The proof which was to be given for showing these eligibility conditions was mentioned in the specifications and in the instant case, it was registration issued by the FCI as the approved party for purchase of food-grains from the FCI. The petitioner also submitted its bids i.e. technical as well as financial. It is not in dispute that it fulfilled all the other conditions. Insofar as approval regarding manufacturing license is concerned, approval in the form of registration with the FCI was furnished by the petitioner which was issued to the petitioner vide registration No.Q.C.Registration/GI/HR/2010/4185 dated 25.9.2010. As per this certificate, registration was valid for two years from the date of issue of this certificate. It was also stated that the status of the firm is proprietorship and the name of the owner is Subhash Goyal son of Sh.Jogi Ram. In the aforesaid certificate produced, photo copy of which is shown to us for our perusal, though initially it was mentioned that registration is valid for “one year” from the date of issue of the said letter, however, there is cutting on the word “one” and instead 'two' (2) is written and the year is changed to 'years' by adding 's'. Because of this cutting, the respondent nurtured some doubt about the period of validity. Because of this cutting, the respondent nurtured some doubt about the period of validity. The petitioner was asked to produce some document to show that the cutting was made by the FCI and the registration was valid for two years. Though, the petitioner had asked for some time to produce the said certificate, however, its bid for Samana was rejected on the ground that it does not conform to the specifications and there was no valid registration with the FCI. It is clear from the above that the license of the petitioner was valid up to 26.9.2012. From this, it can easily be inferred that the earlier certificate dated 27.9.2010 produced by the petitioner was valid for two years which was submitted along-with the bid document and inspite of this certificate produced alongwith the representation of the same date to the respondent requesting not to reject its bid, no response was received from the respondent. As the petitioner was the sole bidder for Samana, after rejecting its bid, the respondent decided to invite fresh tender. The petitioner, however, obtained a certificate dated 03.10.2012 from the FCI and produced the same to the respondent. This certificate is to the following effect:- “CERTIFICATE The representation of M/s. Goyal Industrial, Uklana Road, Narwana (Jind) in regard of renewal of license for the purpose of damaged food grains has been submitted to Regional Office, Panchkula, vide this office letter No.QC 9 (1)/ Dam/Cat/OK/11-12/2755 dated 9.8.2012 for further action at his end. The license of the said party was valid up to 27.9.2012”. At this juncture, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. The respondent had filed response to this writ petition maintaining that the registration certificate produced by the petitioner was not proper in view of cutting in the said registration certificate in the manner mentioned above and as the petitioner could not produce satisfactory evidence when it was asked for, its bid was rightly rejected. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that once there are requirement/ liability conditions stipulated in the notice inviting tender, the bidder is supposed to adhere to the same scrupulously and even a little deviation there from would entitle the respondent to reject the said tender. In support of his contention, he has referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Goldyan Technoserve Ltd. Vs. In support of his contention, he has referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Goldyan Technoserve Ltd. Vs. State of M.P. & Ors, 2011 (5) SCC 103 In Goldyan Technoserve (supra), one of the requirements for the bid was to submit Quality Certificate in the form of an ISO 9001: 2000 certification. It was further provided that in clause 9 of Section 7 1.1. and request for proposal (RFP) that said quality certificate or documentation of the quality policy was to be produced alongwith the bid document. The appellant in that case was not provided this quality certificate along with the bid document but sought to produce certificate on a subsequent date and that was the reason for rejection of his bid, which action of the respondent was affirmed by the Supreme Court. That is not the situation in the present case. As noted above, the petitioner had fulfilled the requirement of producing the registration certificate issued by the FCI alongwith the bid document. The only question was as to whether the registration as per that certificate was valid for one year or two years. As pointed out above, though registration was said to be valid for two years, doubt had arisen because of the cutting of the word 'one' and replacing the same by word 'two' written in hand. Therefore, it is not the case where the document is not produced whereas in this case, the genuineness of the document had been doubted by the respondent. No doubt, it was open to the respondent to clarify its doubt but at the same time, reasonable time should have been granted to the petitioner to produce the requisite certificate of the FCI to the effect that the registration was valid for two years as stated in the registration certificate dated 25/27.9.2010, already produced by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent has produced the original letter which contains minutes. Minutes are recorded on 26.9.2012, where in it is stated that opportunity was given to the petitioner to produce the document which it failed to produce. It is a clear case from the recording of these minutes at the spot that the petitioner was asked to produce the specifications in support of its genuineness of the registration certificate dated 25/27.9.2010 there and then and no time was granted to it for this purpose. It is a clear case from the recording of these minutes at the spot that the petitioner was asked to produce the specifications in support of its genuineness of the registration certificate dated 25/27.9.2010 there and then and no time was granted to it for this purpose. Thus, the respondent expected the petitioner to do the same without granting any time. The things were not within the control of the petitioner as to the specific doubt of the respondent. It was necessary for the petitioner to approach the FCI and obtain a certificate of clarification. We are, therefore, of the opinion that reasonable time should have been granted to the petitioner for this purpose and without giving this opportunity and rejecting technical bid there and then, amounts to an arbitrary act on the part of the respondent. We, accordingly, quash the action of the respondent in rejecting technical bid of the petitioner on the same date submitted in pursuance to NIT dated 26.9.2012. In view thereof, the financial bid of the petitioner shall be opened and evaluated on its merit. The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.