1. This appeal is filed by the Railways against the interim order passed by the learned single Judge. The writ petition was filed by challenging the rejection of the technical bid. The said writ petition is pending before the learned single Judge for consideration. In the said writ petition an interim order was passed. 2. WP(C) No.2696/2014 was filed by the person whose tender relating to technical bid has been rejected and in the said writ petition the learned single Judge passed an interim order against the Railways. The Railways aggrieved by the said order filed a miscellaneous application before the learned single Judge for Vacating the interim order. The said application was dismissed and against the said order this appeal is filed. 3. Writ appeal 296/2014 has been filed by the successful bidder. It is the contention that in pursuance of its acceptance of the bid the Railways issued work-order on 22.5.2014 vide annexure E and that in compliance of the work-order they reported to the Railways that they have commenced the works from 1.6.2014. It is the contention that since they have already started the works the interim order granted is to be vacated. The said bidder also filed a miscellaneous application before the learned Single Judge for vacating the interim order, which is dismissed. Hence, the successful bidder is in appeal. 4. It is the contention of the petitioner whose bid has been rejected that he was earlier doing the same contract works with the Railways and he fulfils all the needed eligibility criteria. The Railways dishonestly resorting to misinterpretation of the circular dated 23rd November, 2006 has illegally rejected his bid. The tender qualification and eligibility criteria are stated in para 2.1 of the tender notification is extracted hereunder for convenient reference. "(a) Total Contract amount received during the last three financial years and in the current financial year up to the date of tender closing, should be minimum 150% of the advertised tender value of work. Tenderer(s) shall submit documents to this effect, in the form of attested certificates from employer/client, audited balance sheet duly certified by Chartered Accountant. (b) The tenderer should have, in the last three financial years and the current financial year up to the date of tender closing, completed at least one similar single work for a minimum value of 35% of this advertised tender. (b) The tenderer should have, in the last three financial years and the current financial year up to the date of tender closing, completed at least one similar single work for a minimum value of 35% of this advertised tender. Or The tenderer should have, in the last three financial years and the current financial year Up to the date of tender closing, received payment of at least 35% of this advertised tender against uninterrupted and satisfactory execution of an ongoing similar work. (c) The contractor shall have experience in carrying out similar nature of work. Similar nature of work means - "Mechanized coach cleaning contracts in Railways or mechanized cleaning in Central and State Government Installations or four or five star hotels". 5. The said evaluation of the tender relating to technical bid of the petitioner whose bid is not accepted and the reasons for rejection of the technical bid of the petitioner whose tender is rejected are stated in para 9.1.2 of the minutes of the tender committee dated 5th May, 2014 which is extracted here under for convenient reference. "Advertised tender value : Rs 2,45,71,216, 35% of the tender value is Rs 85,99,926. The LI tenderer, (3/3) M/s. Robi Boruah, Mohanbari, Dibrugarhh has submitted a work completion certificate for a similar nature of work as defined in eligibility criteria (c) for the work of "Mechanised cleaning of coaches (External and Internal) and water topping for a period of 1 year at Coaching Depot DBRG vide CA No. Mech/Trains/MCC/Pt.I dated 15.6.2013 issued by CDO/DBRG at SM-420. As per the original Contract Agreement (copy of SN-718-716) total 31755 coaches were included in the contract. As per CDO/ DBRG's certificate, the LI tenderer has completed the original contracted quantity. However, Vide DRM (M)/TSK's L/No. Mech/Trains/MCC/Pt.I dated 25.3.2014 as submitted by the tenderer at SN-424, the contract has been extended to 10.5.2014. Even if the original contract quantities are considered to be completed, as per para 4 of Railway Board L/No. 94/CE-1/CT/4 dated 23.11.2006 (copy at SN-720-719), in case, the final bill of similar nature of work has riot been passed and final measurements have not been recorded, the paid amount including statutory deduction is to be considered. As per certificate issued by DFM/TSK vide No. TSK/XP/Misc/2011-12 dated 28.3.2014 (SN-430), payment of total Rs 54,16,388 has been made to the contractor against the work. As per certificate issued by DFM/TSK vide No. TSK/XP/Misc/2011-12 dated 28.3.2014 (SN-430), payment of total Rs 54,16,388 has been made to the contractor against the work. On the other hand as per note of CDO/DBRG at SN-715 upon to 31.3.2014, the contractor has submitted total bill against the contract amounting to only Rs. 72,51,173.80 which is less than 35% of the advertised value of this tender under consideration. Moreover, as per para 5 of the Railway Board's aforesaid letter, if final measurements have been recorded and work has been completed with positive variation but variation but variation has not been sanctioned, the original agreement or last sanctioned value whichever is lower should be considered for judging eligibility. The variation against the contract has not been sanctioned as yet. The original contract value of Rs. 83,38,863 of the aforesaid con tract is less than 35% of the advertised value of this tender. Thus, on failure of the LI tenderer to fulfill the eligibility criteria (b), the LI tenderer has been found not technically suitable for the work." 6. It was the contention of petitioner before the learned Single Judge that as per the tender conditions a tenderer should have in the last three financial years and current financial year up to the date of tender closing "completed at least one similar single work for a minimum value of 35% of the advertised tender", or the tenderer should have in last three financial years and the current financial year up to the tender of closing "received payment of at least 35 per cent of the advertised tender against uninterrupted and satisfactory execution of an ongoing similar work". 7. It is the contention of the petitioner before the learned single Judge that reasons given in para 9.1.2 of the minutes of the tender committee for rejection are illegal. It is in the said reasons that it is stated that payment of a sum of Rs 54,16,388 has been made to the contractor for the work and on the other hand as per the note of the CDO/DBRG up to 31.3.2014 the contractor had submitted a total bill of Rs 72,51,173.80 which is less than 35 per cent of the advertised value of tender under consideration. As against this reason the petitioner submits that the North-east Frontier Railways have issued a certificate of the total work completed satisfactorily till, 25.3.2014 vide annexure 8, which is as follows : "This is to certify that Robi Boruah, Mohanbari, Dibrugarh, Contractor pf Mechanized cleaning of coaches (External and Internal) and water topping for a period of 1 year at Coaching Depot DBRG has completed the work satisfactorily till 25.312014". - 8. It is the contention that tender conditions with regard to the value of the work done or value of payment made proportionate to the value of the tender in question, alternately, may be considered. Petitioner, however, fulfils the qualification of completion of work-of 35 per cent of the tender value under consideration successfully as per annexure 8, then question of considering the 35 per cent of the amount paid should not be looked into when he fulfills the first qualification. In fact in para 9.1.2 of the minutes of the tender committee the committee took into consideration the value of the bill submitted, i.e., the value of the bill submitted cannot be the considerations as per the tender conditions; it is only the value of the works done that will be the criteria for consideration of the eligibility, not the pending bills. 9. Upon considering the .order of the learned Single Judge and .the facts and materials it prima facie discloses that the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge appears to be sound and proper. When the question of illegal rejections of the tender is there it is appropriate that the execution of the contract works has to be stayed. Accordingly the appeal of the successful bidder is dismissed. The writ petition be placed before the learned Single Judge for disposal in accordance with law.