JUDGMENT : VASANTI A. NAIK, J. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a declaration that the petitioner is entitled to participate in the tender process initiated by the tender notices bearing no. 423 and 424 displayed by the respondent - Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation on its website. The petitioner has challenged the communication of the respondent dated 28-7-2015 disqualifying the bid of the petitioner. The respondent no. 5 published an e-tender on 25-5-2015 vide two separate tender notices bearing no. 423 and 424 for the construction of civic amenities to rehabilitate Village Palsoda and Village Takali Watpal under the Jigaon Project. The estimated cost of the work to be executed in Village Takali Watpal was Rs. 766.192 Lacs and the estimated cost of the work to be executed in Village Palsoda was Rs.753.598 Lacs. The petitioner submitted the bid in pursuance of the tender notice nos. 423 and 424. According to the tender condition, a tenderer was required to have an average annual turnover over the past 5 years of at least 565.20 Lacs. So also, a tenderer – contractor was required to have the work experience of successfully completing at least one contract of road work and building work of the value of not less than Rs. 226 Lacs. The contractor or sub-contractor was also required to have an experience of constructing at least one RCC building with at least 2 rooms and a constructed gutter of at least 500 meters in length. As per clause 3.10 of the tender notice, the envelop no. 1 i.e. the technical bid was to be opened online to verify whether the contents are as per the requirements. It was mentioned that if it was found that any of the documents contained in envelop No.1 do not meet the requirement of the Department, after recording a note, the envelop no. 2 i.e. the financial bid would not be considered for further action in terms of the said decision. It was also provided in sub-clause (b) of clause 3.10 of the tender that the financial bid would be opened on-line immediately after the opening of the technical bid, only if the contents of envelop no. 1 (technical bid) are found to be acceptable to the Department. It was also provided in sub-clause (b) of clause 3.10 of the tender that the financial bid would be opened on-line immediately after the opening of the technical bid, only if the contents of envelop no. 1 (technical bid) are found to be acceptable to the Department. It is the case of the petitioner that the technical and financial bid of the petitioner was opened by the respondent – Corporation and after the Corporation found that the petitioner's bid was the lowest in respect of e-tender no. 423, the petitioner was conveyed within a few minutes from opening of the financial bid that the petitioner was not eligible as it did not have the required experience of constructing two rooms and a gutter of 500 meters in length. According to the petitioner, the financial bid of the petitioner for tender no. 424 was not opened. The technical bid of the petitioner was considered in respect of the tender no. 424 and the petitioner was informed that the petitioner did not qualify. The action of the respondents in holding the petitioner to be ineligible, is challenged by the petitioner in the instant petition. Shri Dharmadhikari, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner had two submissions to make. According to the learned Senior Counsel, in terms of clause 3.10 of the tender, a financial bid or the second envelop could have been opened only if the Corporation was satisfied that the contents of the technical bid were as per the requirements of the tender. It is stated that since the respondent – Corporation considered the financial bid of the petitioner by opening envelop no.2 on 28-7-2015, it is apparent that the Corporation was satisfied that the documents contained in envelop no.1 met with the requirements of the Department. It is submitted that after the petitioner's bid was found to be lowest in respect of tender no.423, the Corporation has illegally conveyed that the petitioner was not eligible as it did not meet the criteria of experience of constructing two rooms and a gutter of 500 meters length. It is submitted that it is clear from the action on the part of the Corporation of opening the second envelop that the petitioner had qualified in the technical bid. It is submitted that it is clear from the action on the part of the Corporation of opening the second envelop that the petitioner had qualified in the technical bid. It is submitted that the respondent – Corporation had illegally disqualified the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner did not have the experience of constructing two rooms and a gutter of 500 meters. It is submitted that the petitioner had submitted work completion certificate issued by the Executive Engineer, Mula Irrigation Division, Ahmednagar to show that the petitioner had completed the work of rehabilitation and modernization of Sonai Dy. Mula Right Tank Canal of Mula Project amounting to Rs. 605.67 Lacs. It is submitted that to say that a contractor constructing a canal running into 100 Kms. does not have an experience of constructing two rooms and a gutter of 500 m., is absurd. Shri Jagtap, the learned Counsel for the V.I.D.C. submitted that the tender of the petitioner was rightly rejected as the petitioner was not eligible. It is submitted that it is clearly mentioned in the e-tender dated 25.5.2015 that the post qualification criteria would be applied to the tender process. It is stated that as per post qualification criteria, the technical and the financial bids are to be opened and considered at the same time and both the envelopes were opened simultaneously. It is submitted that the respondent – Corporation had followed the procedure in Government Resolution dated 18.10.2014 and opened both the envelopes simultaneously. It is stated that the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was qualified in the technical bid and therefore, the financial bid of the petitioner was opened for tender no.423, is incorrect. It is stated that the petitioner was informed immediately after opening the envelopes that the petitioner did not qualify as the petitioner did not have the experience of constructing two rooms and a gutter of 500 meters length. It is submitted that though the petitioner may have the experience of constructing Canals and buildings, the petitioner has not tendered any documents to show that the petitioner possesses the experience of constructing a RCC building with two rooms and a gutter. It is submitted that the petitioner’s bid for tender no.424 was also considered and both the envelops were opened simultaneously. It is submitted that the petitioner’s bid for tender no.424 was also considered and both the envelops were opened simultaneously. It is submitted that since the tender of the petitioner was non-responsive, in view of absence of experience in similar works, the petitioner was rightly informed that it was not eligible. It would be necessary to consider whether the action of the respondent – Corporation in holding that the technical bid of the petitioner did not qualify for further participation, could be sustained on the basis of the tender conditions. The relevant conditions of the tender read thus : - “3.7.3 General Experience The tenderer shall meet the following minimum criteria. (a) Average annual turnover (defined as billing for works in progress and completed in all classes of civil engineering construction works only) over the last Five years shall not be less than 565.20 lakhs (at current Price Level). This should be duly audited by Chartered Accountant. The Year in which no turnover is shown would also be considered for working out the average turnover. (b) Contractor should have Experience in successfully completing at least one contract of Road work and Building work of the value of not less than Rs.226.0 lakhs (updated to current price level (2015-16).” Additionally, the tenderer was required to have the experience of completion of at least one RCC building with at least two rooms and constructed gutter of at least 500 meters in length. The said tender condition i.e. 3.7.3 (e) reads thus :- “(e) Experience in similar work : - As a prime Contractor or Sub-contractor applicant bidder should have completed at least one RCC building with at least 2 Room and constructed Gutter of at least 500 M. in length.” It would also be necessary to refer to condition no.3.10 of the tender. Clause 3.10 of the tender relates to the opening of tender. The said clause reads thus : - “3.10 OPENING OF TENDER : On the date specified in the Tender Schedule following procedure will be adopted. (A) ENVELOPE No.1 : - ( Documents) First of all Envelope No.1 of the tender will be opened online to verify its contents as per requirements. The said clause reads thus : - “3.10 OPENING OF TENDER : On the date specified in the Tender Schedule following procedure will be adopted. (A) ENVELOPE No.1 : - ( Documents) First of all Envelope No.1 of the tender will be opened online to verify its contents as per requirements. If the various documents contained in this envelope do not meet the requirements of the Department, a note will be recorded accordingly by the tender opening authority and the said tenderers Envelope No.2 will not be considered for further action and the same will be recorded. The decision of the tender opening authority in this regard will be final and binding on the contractors. (B) ENVELOPE No.2 (Financial Bid) This envelope shall be opened online immediately after opening of Envelope No.1, only if contents of Envelope No.1 are found to be acceptable to the Department. The tendered rates in Schedule ‘B’ or percentage above/below the estimated rates shall then be read out in the presence of bidders who remain present at the time of opening of Envelope No.2.” It is, thus, clear from a combined reading of the aforesaid conditions in the tender, that are relevant for deciding the issue involved in this writ petition that the tenderer was required to have an average annual turnover of not less than Rs.565.20 lakhs over the past five years in respect of civil engineering construction works and was also required to have an experience of successfully completing at least one contract of road work and building work of the value of not less than 226.0 lakhs. It is not the case of the respondent – Corporation that the petitioner – contractor does not have the average annual turnover of 565.20 lakhs over the past five years in respect of civil engineering construction works nor is it the case of the Corporation that the petitioner does not have the experience of successfully completing a contract of road work and building work of the value of not less than 226.0 lakhs. After reading Clauses (a) and (b) of condition 3.7.3 pertaining to General Experience, we are surprised to find the inclusion of clause 3.7.3 (e), which requires the experience of construction of two rooms and a gutter of 500 meters in length. After reading Clauses (a) and (b) of condition 3.7.3 pertaining to General Experience, we are surprised to find the inclusion of clause 3.7.3 (e), which requires the experience of construction of two rooms and a gutter of 500 meters in length. Though we are not called upon to consider the correctness or otherwise of the inclusion of the said condition in the tender, we are surprised about its inclusion. If a contractor has an experience of successfully completing a contract of road and building work of the value of 226.0 lakhs and civil engineering construction work with an annual turnover of 565 lakhs, it is not possible to believe that the said contractor would not have the experience of constructing a building with two rooms and a gutter of 500 meters. Even an amateur contractor entering into the construction business would be able to claim the experience of completing a building with two rooms and a gutter. We cannot gauge the intention of the Corporation in including the said condition in the e-tender. Inclusion of any other condition relating to special knowledge or expertise could have been acceptable. Be that as it may, the stand of the V.I.D.C. that the petitioner having constructed roads and buildings of the value of more than Rs.226.0 lakhs and having an average annual turnover in respect of civil engineering construction works over the past five years to the extent of Rs.565.20 lakhs would not have the experience of constructing two rooms and a gutter, is unacceptable. Condition no.3.7.3 (e) in the tender notice could be like a condition for possessing the knowledge of addition and subtraction when the general condition requires a degree in mathematics. The documents on record clearly show and it is also not disputed by the respondent – Corporation that the petitioner satisfies the criteria of General Experience, as laid down in condition no.3.7.3 (a) and (b). The petitioner has an annual turnover of Rs.565 lakhs in respect of civil engineering construction works and has completed a contract of construction of road and buildings, valued more than 226 lakhs. We find from the circumstances of the case that the petitioner’s bid was rejected only after it was found that the bid of the petitioner was lowest. The said fact could be depicted from condition no.3.10 that relates to the opening of the tender. We find from the circumstances of the case that the petitioner’s bid was rejected only after it was found that the bid of the petitioner was lowest. The said fact could be depicted from condition no.3.10 that relates to the opening of the tender. The said condition mentions that first of all envelope no.1 (technical bid) would be opened to verify its contents as per requirements and if the documents contained in that envelope do not meet the requirements of the Department, a note would be recorded and envelope no.2 (financial bid) would not be considered for further action. It is further emphasized in condition no.3.10 (B) that envelope no.2 (financial bid) would be opened immediately after opening envelope no.1 only if the contents of envelope no.1 are found to be acceptable to the Department. It is apparent from a reading of condition no.3.10 that the second envelope or the financial bid could not have been opened by the Corporation, unless it was satisfied that the documents contained in the first envelope meet the requirements of the Department. There is much force in the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the financial bid of the petitioner was opened only because the Department was satisfied that the documents contained in the technical bid met the requirements of the Department as per the e-tender. A lame attempt has been made on behalf of the Corporation to justify the action by referring to the Government Resolution dated 18.10.2014 that speaks of the post qualification criteria. It is sought to be canvassed on the basis of the said Resolution that as per the Government policy relating to post qualification criteria both the envelopes are to be opened simultaneously. The submission made on behalf of the Corporation is liable to be rejected for more reasons than one. Firstly, the said submission is not in conformity with condition no.3.10 of the tender, which we have discussed in detail in the earlier part of the judgment. Secondly, the said stand of the Corporation is falsified by the submissions made on behalf of the respondent nos.2 to 5 on affidavit. It is clearly stated in paragraph no.3 of the submissions that the technical bids i.e. the first envelopes were opened on 30.6.2015 and the financial bids i.e. the second envelopes were opened on 28.7.2015. Secondly, the said stand of the Corporation is falsified by the submissions made on behalf of the respondent nos.2 to 5 on affidavit. It is clearly stated in paragraph no.3 of the submissions that the technical bids i.e. the first envelopes were opened on 30.6.2015 and the financial bids i.e. the second envelopes were opened on 28.7.2015. The financial bids of the petitioner could not have been opened on 28.7.2015, if the petitioner did not fulfill the eligibility criteria. It is apparent from the submissions made on affidavit that the financial bids were opened as per condition no.3.10 of the etender after the Department was satisfied that the various documents contained in the first envelope met the requirements of the Department. We find that after the petitioner was found to be the lowest bidder, for the reasons best known to the Corporation, the Corporation conveyed to the petitioner within a few minutes from the opening of the financial bid that the tender of the petitioner was non-responsive as the petitioner did not have the experience of constructing two rooms in RCC construction and a gutter of 500 meters. The work completion certificate and the other documents tendered by the petitioner in the technical bid clearly show that the petitioner has a vast experience in construction work. Since the petitioner has experience of successfully completing a contract of road work and building work of the value of more than 226.0 lakhs that relates to Canal, the stand of the respondent – Corporation that the petitioner does not have the experience of construction of a gutter line of 500 meters in length, invites ridicule. It is clear from the action on the part of the Corporation of opening the financial bid of the petitioner that the technical bid was acceptable to the Corporation and the contents of envelop no.1 met the requirements of the Corporation. The impugned communication cannot be sustained in the circumstances of the case. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned communication is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the price bid of the petitioner. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.