JUDGMENT B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. Petitioner initially challenged the allotment of tender work to respondent no.2 and sought direction that it should be allotted to it. This Court issued notice on 24th January, 2014. In view of the subsequent events, petition has been amended to challenge the work order issued by respondent no.1 to respondent no.2 on 24th January, 2014. 2. Work in dispute is described in tender Code No.36012 dated 2nd November, 2013. Technical bids were opened on 7th November, 2013 and the price bid has been opened on 2nd January, 2014. Respondent no.2 has been found lowest. The petitioner had raised objection but it was rejected on 18th January, 2014 by respondent no.1. Then work order came to be issued. Present petition came to be filed on 23rd January, 2014. Looking to the nature of controversy, we have heard it finally with consent of the parties by issuing Rule and making it returnable forthwith. 3. By inviting attention to the documents required to be submitted by bidders for considering their Techno Commercial Bid, Advocate Mirza submits that document No.1 essentially contemplates that bidder should be a regular contractor of respondent no.1 for similar nature of work. The petitioner alone qualifies this requirement. Respondent no.2 has submitted documents in relation to a third person namely Randeep Khandare wherein address shown is also different. Respondent no.1, therefore, could not have accepted those documents as documents of petitioner. He further points out that document No.3 about submission of evidence of satisfactory performance of work necessarily postulates similar nature of work with respondent no.1. The petitioner and other bidders have submitted that certificate, while respondent no.2 has given a certificate issued by Kamptee Municipal Council about satisfactory completion of work. He further contends that work done by respondent no.2 with Kamptee Municipal Council is not similar nature of work. 4. Coming to qualifying requirement No.1, learned counsel states that average annual financial turnover during the last three years ending 31st March of the previous financial year needed to be filed on record. The petitioner and other bidders accordingly filed documents to show their turnover for period up to 31st March, 2013. Respondent No.2 has not filed any such document for period from 1st April, 2012 till 31st March, 2013. Thus, qualifying requirement no.1 is also not fulfilled. The petitioner and other bidders accordingly filed documents to show their turnover for period up to 31st March, 2013. Respondent No.2 has not filed any such document for period from 1st April, 2012 till 31st March, 2013. Thus, qualifying requirement no.1 is also not fulfilled. Insofar as qualifying requirement No.2 is concerned, learned counsel states that experience certificate for satisfactory completion Certificate issued by Kamptee Municipal Council cannot be of any use. Similarly, documents in relation to Randeep Khandare, being not of respondent No.2, could not have been looked into. Therefore, qualifying requirement No.2 is also not fulfilled. To substantiate his contention, the learned counsel relies upon various documents on record and comparative chart placed by respondent no.1 itself along with the submissions of respondent no.1. 5. Shri Moharil, learned counsel for respondent no.1 relies upon Chart filed along with reply of respondent no.1 to show that respondent no. 2 fulfilled all requirements. He submits that there was a certificate issued by Kamptee Municipal Council about satisfactory completion of similar nature of work by respondent no.2 and the respondent no.2 also submitted data which was relevant for the purposes of considering qualifying requirement No.1. On one occasion he also sought time to find out whether turnover for the period from 1/4/2012 till 31/3/2013 was placed on record by respondent no.2. 6. Insofar as the work orders issued in the name of Randeep Khandare are concerned, learned counsel states that there the SAP No. mentioned is same and it proves conclusively that said Shri Randeep Khandare is associated with respondent no.2. He points out that at relevant time respondent no.2 was performing some work at Paras Thermal Power Station and therefore, the address of Akola was being used. He submits that use of Vendor Code (SAP No.) is conclusive insofar as respondent no.1 is concerned. 7. He further submits that the qualifying criteria contemplated one similar completed work costing not less than the amount equal to 80% of the estimated cost. Respondent no.2 had completed work worth Rs. 34,10,000/- while the estimated costs of present contractual work is Rs. 20,94,100/-. Thus, this requirement is also satisfied. He invites attention to how phrase “similar nature” has been understood or explained in the tender document to urge that respondent no.2 fulfilled that requirement. 8. Advocate Chopde, learned counsel for respondent no.2 invited attention to all relevant dates. 34,10,000/- while the estimated costs of present contractual work is Rs. 20,94,100/-. Thus, this requirement is also satisfied. He invites attention to how phrase “similar nature” has been understood or explained in the tender document to urge that respondent no.2 fulfilled that requirement. 8. Advocate Chopde, learned counsel for respondent no.2 invited attention to all relevant dates. He contends that respondent no.2 is lowest and had submitted all documents. He further states that non-mention of document for financial year 2012-13 in Chart at Page 50 by respondent no.1 cannot be used against respondent no.2 as respondent no.2 has not prepared that document. He further submits that this error did not come to his notice as he was not supplied copy of reply by respondent no.1. He also sought time from Court to place additional material on record in this respect. He further contends that in petition there is no specific challenge that for said period the respondent no.2 has not submitted the turnover certificate. He contends that the case, as made out in petition, is fully met with and traversed by respondent no.2. He therefore prays for dismissal of the petition. 9. The qualifying norms require two documents which are described as Document No.1 and document No.3. Relevant part of Techno Commercial Bid dealing with these documents reads as under – “DOC 1 Bidder should be regular contractor at TPS MSPGCL for the similar nature of work. Please upload document. DOC 3 Bidder should submit evidence for satisfactory performance of the work.” These requirements clearly show that the satisfactory performance of the work envisaged for document no.3 is about the similar nature of work spoken of in document no.1. The respondent no.2 therefore should have shown, that he had submitted evidence of satisfactory performance of similar nature of work as a regular contractor of respondent no.1. Admittedly, respondent no.2 does not possess any such document. Arguments of respondent nos. 1 and 2 above also show that no document showing turnover for period 2012-13 is filed on record. 10. The Certificate produced by petitioner is issued by Chief Officer of Municipal Council Kamptee on 1/7/2013. It mentions that the petitioner has successfully completed the work of maintaining the water treatment and supply scheme of Kamptee Municipal Council for the financial year 2012-13. Total amount of this work is disclosed to be Rs.34,10,000/-. 10. The Certificate produced by petitioner is issued by Chief Officer of Municipal Council Kamptee on 1/7/2013. It mentions that the petitioner has successfully completed the work of maintaining the water treatment and supply scheme of Kamptee Municipal Council for the financial year 2012-13. Total amount of this work is disclosed to be Rs.34,10,000/-. It is, therefore, obvious that respondent no.2 could not produce document no.3 as envisaged by Techno Commercial Bid. Similar nature of work has been defined in tender document to mean the assisting work in SWAS Lab./water treatment plant/Soft water treatment plant/domestic water treatment plant operation and maintenance work in shift and of Sampling work. Below it there is Clause No.3 which stipulates again that bidder should be regular contractor of respondent no.1 for similar nature of work. Discussion about it above is sufficient to show that this Clause No.3 is not satisfied by respondent no.2. Scheduled ‘B’ with tender documents is about the details which are envisaged in the contract. The details show the work of handling of Chemicals like Ammonia, Hydrazine, Tri Sodium Phosphate and other required reagent, Dosing of chemicals in respect of dosing tanks as directed, collection of hourly system and boiler water samples for analysis, collector of Hourly data from PCR to laboratory and vice versa, up keeping of laboratory and instruments, housekeeping of the laboratory, any other related works as per instruction of Chemist in charge are also included therein. This document runs into three pages. We find that the respondent no.2 has not done similar nature of work with respondent no. 1 and work of maintaining water treatment and supply scheme of Kamptee Municipal Council by respondent no.2 can not be treated as similar nature of work. 11. During arguments, respondent no.1 as also respondent no.2 have pointed out that staff earlier working under petitioner has been employed by respondent no.2 and therefore, respondent no.2 also has advantage of experience and expertise of that staff. We find the argument to be erroneous and misconceived. If such arrangement is to be accepted, a person without any experience can also be then allotted tender with a condition that he should employee the staff already working on the establishment of respondent no.1 for said purpose. 12. In view of this discussion, we find that the respondent no.2 fails to meet qualifying requirements as envisaged at Sr.Nos.1 to 4 of Techno Commercial Bid. 13. 12. In view of this discussion, we find that the respondent no.2 fails to meet qualifying requirements as envisaged at Sr.Nos.1 to 4 of Techno Commercial Bid. 13. In this situation, acceptance of bid of respondent no.2 cannot be sustained. Same is, therefore, set aside. Respondent no.1 is directed to consider the remaining bids in the field and proceed further in the matter in accordance with the law. The petition is thus partly allowed. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs. 14. Advocate Chopde, at this stage, seeks stay of present judgment for a period of four weeks to enable the respondent no.2 to approach Hon’ble Apex Court. Advocate Moharil submits that the respondent no.1 may require time of about fifteen days to complete the process as directed by this Court. Advocate Mirza for the petitioner is strongly opposing to grant of interim order. 15. In this situation, as respondent no.1 is requiring time of about fifteen days, we stay the judgment for about four weeks. However, in the meanwhile the respondent no.1 shall process further the tender as directed by this Court and take suitable decision. That decision shall not be given effect to for a period of four weeks. Petition allowed.