Judgment Biswajit Mohanty, J. The present writ application has been filed for quashing of order under Annexure-I so far as it relates to rejection of petitioner’s technical bid on the ground that the petitioner has not submitted self attested photo copy of the licence for sale of drugs, medicines issued by the appropriate Drugs Controller under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 for carrying out business of selling of medicines. The petitioner has further prayed that opposite parties be directed to open petitioner’s financial bid and consider the same along with others. 2. The petitioner is a proprietorship concern, which is represented by its proprietor Sri Pradeep Kumar Senapati. All India Institute of Medical Science, Bhubaneswar (opposite party no.1) issued notice inviting tender on 28.2.2014 vide Annexure-2 for “24x7 Pharmacy/Chemist Shop for supply of medicines/drugs/surgical/ consumables/implants/orthoticand Prosthetic Devices etc.” within the premises of the All India Medical Science, Bhubaneswar. The last date for down-loading/purchase of the tender document was fixed to 21.3.2014 and the last date of submission of tender was fixed to 24.3.2014. Annexure-3 contains detail description of terms and conditions of tender. A perusal of Annexure-3 makes it clear that the tender must be submitted in two sealed envelopes separately. In Envelop-A, tender form duly signed on every page was required to be submitted. This is otherwise known as technical bid. The second envelop namely Envelop-B is to contain financial bid. Annexure-3 at Clause-5 provided for submission of number of pre-qualification documents, which were required to be submitted along with tender form. It also makes clear that tenders received without pre-qualification documents would make the tender invalid. Clause-5(e) requires that the tenderer should submit a self attested photo copy of the valid licence for sale of drugs/medicines issued by the appropriate Drug Controller under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 for carrying out business of selling of medicines etc. The petitioner purchased the tender paper and also deposited EMD of Rs.1,00,000/-by Bank Draft. According to the petitioner, the tender paper submitted by it contained all the relevant required documents. Further, according to the petitioner it has an existing 24 hour medicine shop and thus it has the experience of serving public for more than 10 years. The petitioner purchased the tender paper and also deposited EMD of Rs.1,00,000/-by Bank Draft. According to the petitioner, the tender paper submitted by it contained all the relevant required documents. Further, according to the petitioner it has an existing 24 hour medicine shop and thus it has the experience of serving public for more than 10 years. With regard to question of licence, a perusal of Annexure-6 would show that though the licence expired on 31.12.2006, however the proprietor of the Proprietorship concern, Sri Pradeep Kumar Senapati had applied for renewal of the drug licence for the periods from 1.1.2007 to 31.12.2011 and from 1.1.20012 to 31.12.2016. As per the certificate of Drug Inspector, Odisha dated 10.3.2014, the certificates of renewal for the above mentioned periods were yet to come. The certificate under Annexue-6, issued by the Drug Inspector, Odisha also made it clear that since the applicant had applied for renewal within time, the licence would be treated as valid for the period from 1.1.2007 to 31.12.2011 and from 1.1.2012 to 31.12.2016 as per Rule-63 of the Rules made under Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The certificate issued by the Drugs Inspector, Odisha was submitted along with tender papers. In such background, according to the petitioner, the opposite parties acted in hyper technical manner in rejecting the petitioner’s technical bid as the petitioner had submitted required licence for sale of drugs issued by the appropriate authority. 3. Heard Mr. Prafulla Kumar Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Saktidhar Das, learned Asst.Solicitor General of India. None appeared for the intervener. Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Rule-63 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 dealt with duration of licence. The proviso to the said Rule made it clear that if the application for renewal of licence in force was made before its expiry or if the application was made within six months of its expiry, after payment of additional fee, the licence would continue to be in force until orders were passed on the application. The licence should be deemed to have expired if application for its renewal was not made within six months after its expiry. Relying on the certificate under Annexure-6 issued by the Drugs Inspector, Odisha, Mr. The licence should be deemed to have expired if application for its renewal was not made within six months after its expiry. Relying on the certificate under Annexure-6 issued by the Drugs Inspector, Odisha, Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the certificate made it clear that since the applicant had applied for renewal within the time period, his licence would be treated as valid for the periods from 1.1.2007 to 31.12.2011 and 1.1.2012 to 31.12.2016. On this basis, Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that thus the petitioner had a valid licence and therefore the opposite parties had committed gross illegality in disqualifying the petitioner for not having submitted self attested photo copy of the licence particularly when it was not disputed that the certificate under Annexure-6 issued by the Drugs Inspector, Odisha was before them. Accordingly, he prayed that the order under Annexure-1 so far as the petitioner was concerned be quashed and necessary direction be issued to opposite parties for opening his financial bid and consider the same along with others. 4. Per contra, Mr. Das, learned Asst. Solicitor General of India contended that though the tenderer was Pradeep Kumar Senapati, however this writ application had been filed by M/s. Life Line Medical Store and therefore the aggrieved party was not before this Court. Secondly, he contended that since the tenderer did not submit the licence as required, his case had been rightly rejected. In this context, he relied on two decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, namely Smt. Monika Gupta –v-Union of India and others, 2010(3) Supreme 758 and Goldyne Technoserve Ltd., –v-State of M.P. and others, AIR 2011 S.C. 2574 and accordingly, he prayed that the writ petition should be dismissed. To such submission of Mr. Das, learned Asst. Solicitor General of India; Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that again a hyper technical approach was being adopted by learned Asst. Solicitor General of India inasmuch as the tenderer Sri Pradeep Kumar Senapati happened to be the proprietor of Life Line Medical Store (Day and Night). In this context, Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the proprietary concern was not a legal entity distinct from its proprietor. According to him a proprietary concern was nothing but an individual trading under a trade name. In this context, Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the proprietary concern was not a legal entity distinct from its proprietor. According to him a proprietary concern was nothing but an individual trading under a trade name. In this context, he relied on a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court as rendered in M/s. Shankar Finance and Investments –v-State of A.P. and others, AIR 2009 S.C. 422 . He also submitted that in this case the proprietor himself had executed the vakalatnama. So according to him the aggrieved party was himself before this Court. 5. In such background, we have to consider first whether the aggrieved party is before this Court and secondly whether the technical bid has been rightly rejected on account of non supply of the licence. At the outset, it may be noted here that the opposite parties have not filed any counter affidavit. Now coming to the question as to whether the aggrieved party is before this Court or not, we are not able to accept the contention advanced by the learned Asst. Solicitor General of India. No doubt, as per Annexure-4 the tenderer was Pradeep Kumar Senapati. But the documents under Annexure-6 make it clear that Pradeep Kumar Senapati is the proprietor of Life Line Medical Store (Day and Night) and the same has been reflected in the certificate issued by the Drugs Inspector, Odisha on 10.3.2014 and in the certificate renewal of license issued by the Drugs Controller, Odisha (I/C) (Licensing Authority) on 21.9.2005. Further, it appears that vakalatnama in this case has been executed by Sri Pradeep Kumar Senapati himself. In such background, in our considered opinion, Pradeep Kumar Senapati, Proprietor, Life Line Medical Store (Day and Night) is the real petitioner in this case, though there has been a slight inexactitude in describing M/s. Life Line Medical Store (Day and Night) as the petitioner. However, the Cause Title also makes it clear that the Proprietorship concern is represented by the proprietor Sri Pradeep Kumar Senapati. Since it is well settled that the proprietary concern is not a legal entity distinct from its proprietor; in the facts and circumstances of the case, we accept that the aggrieved party is before us and not a stranger. In such background, the contention of Mr. Das that the aggrieved party is not before us is liable to be rejected. Since it is well settled that the proprietary concern is not a legal entity distinct from its proprietor; in the facts and circumstances of the case, we accept that the aggrieved party is before us and not a stranger. In such background, the contention of Mr. Das that the aggrieved party is not before us is liable to be rejected. With regard to the second question as to whether the authorities were right in rejecting the technical bid of the petitioner on the ground of non submission of licence for sale of drugs and medicines, let us refer to Rule-63 of the Drugs Cosmetic Rules, 1945 which reads as follows:- Rule-63-Duration of licence-An original licence or a renewed licence to sell drugs, unless sooner suspended or cancelled, shall be valid for a period of five years on and from the date on which it is granted or renewed. Provided that if the application for renewal of licence in force is made before its expiry or if the application is made within six months of its expiry, after payment of additional fee, the licence shall continue to be in force until orders are passed on the application. The licence shall be deemed to have expired if application for its renewal is not made within six months after its expiry. A perusal of proviso to Rule-63 makes it clear that where application for renewal of license in force is made before its expiry or where application is made within six months of its expiry, after payment of additional fee, licence shall continue to be in force until orders are passed on the application for renewal. A reference to the certificate issued by the Drugs Inspector, Odisha on 10.3.2014 clearly shows that the tenderer had applied for renewal within the time period and thus his application should be treated as valid till 31.12.2016 unless the application for renewal is refused. 6. In such background, we have no hesitation to hold that the reasons given by the opposite parties for rejecting the technical bid on the ground of non submission of licence cannot stand the scrutiny of law in the background of Rule-63 quoted above. The tenderer has a valid drug license till 31.12.2016. It is also not disputed that along with tender papers, the petitioner had submitted the certificate issued by the Drugs Inspector, Odisha under Annexure-6. The tenderer has a valid drug license till 31.12.2016. It is also not disputed that along with tender papers, the petitioner had submitted the certificate issued by the Drugs Inspector, Odisha under Annexure-6. Therefore, the opposite parties have gone wrong in disqualifying the tenderer for non submission of self attested photo copy of licence for sale of Drugs and Medicines. In fact, according to us, the authorities have acted arbitrarily, irrationally and unreasonably in rejecting the technical bid of the tenderer. Now coming to the decisions cited by the learned Asst. Solicitor General of India, we can only say that these decisions are distinguishable on facts and have no application to the present case. In Smt. Monika Gupta –v-Union of India and others, 2010(3) Supreme 758 advertisement was issued inviting application for L.P.G. Distributorship. Paragraph-8 of the brochure made it clear that with regard to availability of Godown/Show Room on the site as mentioned in the application form, the details given along with the application alone would be considered for this purpose and the applicant would not be given any opportunity to offer any other land subsequently even at the time of interview. Paragraph-13 contained the Norms for Evaluating the Candidates and award of marks on different heads. In that case, the respondent no.4 did not annex any document along with the application form to show that land was available for godown or showroom. Later on, she was said to have submitted two affidavits, which were shown to have been notarized on 8.3.2004. However, the two affidavits and the Photostat copy of the sale deed dated 9.3.2004 did not contain any endorsement showing the date of receipt. It may be noted that in that case the last date fixed for receipt was 9.3.2004. Therefore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court came to a conclusion that the respondent no.4 had not submitted the document showing availability of land for godown and the show room within time. In such background, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Selection Committee did not commit any error by awarding ‘zero’ marks under the heading “Capability to provide land and infrastructure for godown and showroom”. But in the present case, the facts are totally different. In such background, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Selection Committee did not commit any error by awarding ‘zero’ marks under the heading “Capability to provide land and infrastructure for godown and showroom”. But in the present case, the facts are totally different. Here it is not disputed that the certificate under Annexure-6 issued by the Drugs Inspector, Odisha has been supplied along with tender document, which clearly shows that the licence of the tenderer is valid till 31.12.2016. In such background, rejection of technical bid of the petitioner is clearly irrational and unreasonable. So far as the case of Goldyne Technoserve Ltd., –v-State of M.P. and others, ( AIR 2011 S.C. 2574 ) is concerned, here also the facts are totally different. In Goldyne Technoserve Ltd. case, proposal was invited for appointment of vendor for District Mechanism for Public Distribution System. The Clause in RFP obliged the tenderer to produce along with the bid document a copy of the quality certificate, which was valid and active on the date of submission of the bid. Though the tenderer claimed to have a valid and active quality certificate, however, at the time of submission of the bid he did not produce a copy of the said certificate along with the bid document. In such background, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the decision taken to reject the technical bid of the appellant could not be said to be perverse or arbitrary. But here is a case where the document under Annexure-6 showing validity of the licence till 31.12.2016 was submitted along with the technical bid. Despite this, the technical bid was rejected illegally and arbitrarily. Therefore, the present case stands on a different footing than that of the Goldyne Technoserve Ltd., (Supra) 7. In such background, we quash the order under Annexure-1 so far as it affects the petitioner and direct the opposite parties to open financial bid of the petitioner and consider the same with others. Accordingly, the writ application is allowed. No costs.