JUDGMENT : VASANTI A. NAIK, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The writ petition is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a declaration that the action on the part of the respondent Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as “the NMRCL” for the sake of brevity) in disqualifying the technical bid of the petitioner vide communication dated 23.7.2016 is illegal, arbitrary and violative of the provisions of Articles 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India. The petitioner seeks a declaration that the petitioner meets the eligibility as stipulated in clause 4.2 (a) of the Tender Conditions and the impugned communication is liable to be quashed and set aside. Consequently, the petitioner has sought a direction against the respondent to open the financial bid of the petitioner and consider the tender of the petitioner along with the other eligibile tenderers. 3. The petitioner is a Joint Venture between M/s Guangdong Yuantian Engineering Company (GYT) of China, a Stateowned Enterprise being a Company incorporated under the laws of People Republic of China and M/s TATA Projects Limited, an Infrastructure Company, having a vast experience in undertaking urban infrastructure within India and abroad, apart from building Thermal Power Plants, Transmission Lines, World Bank Funded Dedicated Freight Corridor, Railway Projects, Large Metal and Mineral Projects etc. In pursuance of a tender floated by the respondent NMRCL for design and construction of viaduct in Reach-3 between Jhansi Rani Square and Lokmanya Nagar Stations from CH 7825M on the East-West Corridor of Nagpur Metro Rail Project, the petitioner submitted the tender within the prescribed time along with five others. The technical bids of the six tenderers including the petitioner were opened on 28.6.2016 and the petitioner was disqualified as it did not fulfill the condition relating to experience criteria, as specified in clause 4.2 (a) of the Tender Conditions. The experience criteria stipulated in clause 4.2 (a) of the Tender Conditions provides that a tenderer should have satisfactorily completed, as a prime contractor or as a joint venture member during last ten years till 31.5.2016, one contract in a metro Civil Construction Work and should have constructed a viaduct of the length of not less than 5 kms in the same contract. The clause further provices that the contractor or joint venture member should have received minimum INR 3200 million for the said contract. As per the communication of the NMRCL, the petitioner was disqualified for not fulfilling the experience criteria as specified in clause 4.2 (a). The communication dated 23.7.2016 by which the petitioner was informed about its disqualification, is impugned by the petitioner Joint Venture Company in this writ petition and directions, as referred to hereinabove, are sought. 4. Shri M.G. Bhangde, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the respondent could not have disqualified the technical bid of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had not fulfilled the eligibility criteria of experience, as stipulated in clause 4.2 (a) of the tender conditions. It is stated that as per clause 4.2 (a), the tenderer was required to comply with two conditions, the first being that it should have completed one contract in a metro civil construction work and should have constructed a viaduct of a length of not less than 5 kms and the second being that it should have received minimum INR 3200 million from the contract. It is stated that though it is not clear from the impugned communication as to which of the aforesaid conditions is not fulfilled by the petitioner, it is necessary to point out that the petitioner has fulfilled both the conditions. It is stated that the petitioner had constructed a viaduct for Pearl River Delta Intercity high speed railway project of the length of 7.284 km. It is stated that the documents tendered by the petitioner clearly show that the petitioner had constructed a viaduct for the railway metro project of the total length of 7.284 km and it had received 489,116,138.00 Chinese Yuans for the same. It is stated that one Chinese Yuan is equivalent to around 68 Indian rupees as per the conversion rates and it is apparent that the petitioner had received much more than INR 3200 million from the contract of construction of the viaduct for Pearl River Delta Intercity high speed railway project. It is stated that the petitioner has fulfilled both the conditions that are required to be fulfilled as per the experience criteria 4.2 (a) and the rejection of the technical bid of the petitioner, is arbitrary and illegal. 5. It is stated that the petitioner has fulfilled both the conditions that are required to be fulfilled as per the experience criteria 4.2 (a) and the rejection of the technical bid of the petitioner, is arbitrary and illegal. 5. Shri S.K. Mishra, the learned Senior Counsel for the NMRCL submitted that though it is not mentioned in the impugned communication as to which of the two conditions pertaining to experience criteria, mentioned in clause 4.2 (a) of the tender conditions was not fulfilled by the petitioner, the NMRCL has disqualified the technical bid of the petitioner as it has not constructed the viaduct for the metro civil construction. It is stated that there is no dispute that the petitioner has received more than INR 3200 million for the contract of construction of a viaduct for a high speed railway project. It is stated that the petitioner may have constructed a viaduct of the length of 7.284 km which is more than the required length of 5 km, as mentioned in clause 4.2 (a) but the petitioner has not constructed the viaduct for Metro Railway Civil Construction. It is stated that the petitioner has the experience of constructing a viaduct for Pearl River Delta Intercity high speed railway project and not for a Metro Rail Project. It is submitted that the technical bid of the petitioner is disqualified only because the petitioner did not have the experience of completing a contract of constructing a viaduct of not less than 5 km in the Metro Civil Construction work. It is stated that a high speed railway project and the Metro Project could be different. The learned Senior Counsel sought for the dismissal of the writ petition. 6. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the Tender Conditions, we find that the respondent NMRCL is not justified in disqualifying the technical bid of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner did not fulfill the experience criteria, as stipulated by clause 4.2 (a) of the tender conditions. 6. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the Tender Conditions, we find that the respondent NMRCL is not justified in disqualifying the technical bid of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner did not fulfill the experience criteria, as stipulated by clause 4.2 (a) of the tender conditions. The Tender Document relates to the following work:- “NAME OF WORK : DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF VIADUCT IN REACH3 BETWEEN JHANSI RANI SQUARE AND LOKMANY NAGAR STATIONS FROM CH 7825M TO CH18212M ON THE EAST WEST CORRIDOR OF NAGPUR METRO RAIL PROJECT” Clause 4.2 (a) of the tender conditions reads thus:- 4.2 (a) Specific Construction & Contract Management A minimum number of similar contracts specified below that have been satisfactorily completed as a prime contractor, joint venture Experience member during last 10 (Ten) years i.e. up till 31.05.2016 (a) Should have received minimum INR 3200 Million from 1 contract in a metro Civil construction Work and should have completed viaduct length not less than 5 Km in the same contract. It is clear from a reading of the Tender Document and specially clause 4.2 (a) of the tender conditions that a contractor or a joint venture member should have satisfactorily completed one Metro Civil Construction work with a viaduct of a length of not less than 5 kms and should have received minimum INR 3200 million for the said work. It is not disputed by the NMRCL that the petitioner has completed the contract of construction of a viaduct of total length of 7.284 km in a project that was completed by the petitioner on 20th August 2012. There is, therefore, no dispute that the petitioner has an experience of constructing a viaduct of a length of not less than 5 km. It is also not disputed by the NMRCL that the petitioner has received 489,116,138.00 Chinese Yuans after the contract of construction of the viaduct was satisfactorily completed by the petitioner and 489,116,138.00 Chinese Yuans have much more monetary value than INR 3200 million which is the minimum amount that is required to be received by a contractor or a joint venture undertaking towards the completion of the contract. The NMRCL, it appears, has disqualified the technical bid of the petitioner only on the ground that the petitioner has not completed the contract in a Metro Railway Civil Construction work and has completed the work of construction of the viaduct for intercity high speed railway project and intercity high speed railway project would not be a Metro Civil Construction work. 7. There is no dispute that the petitioner had completed civil construction work and the dispute is only whether the civil construction work was for a metro. The tender pertains to construction of viaduct of Nagpur Metrol Rail Project. As the dispute relates only to the term metro, we have referred to the dictionaries to find out the general sense in which the word 'metro' is understood in the common parlance. In the Websters Dictionary, 'Metro' means, “an underground railway system in some cities”. In the Free Dictionary, it means “an underground or largely underground railway system in certain cities, especially in Europe, such as that in Paris”. It also means, “the underground electric railway in certain cities, as Washington and Paris”. 'Metro' means a subway system. In some American cities, 'subway' is a railway system in which electric trains travel below the ground in tunnels. In other cities, this is called the metro or an electric railway operating below the surface of the ground. In Paris the subway system is called the 'metro' and in London it is called the 'tube' or the 'underground'. According to wikipedia, 'Metro' means “Rapid transit passenger railway in an urban area with high capacity and frequency”. 8. It is apparent on a reading of the meaning of the term 'Metro' in various dictionaries that it would mean a railway or an underground railway system for rapid transit, sometimes with high capacity and frequency. In this background, we have perused the documents tendered by the petitioner in the technical bid. The civil construction work completed by the petitioner in terms of condition no. 4.2 (a) was for an intercity high speed railway project in China and in the said contract, the petitioner had completed a viaduct of 7.284 km length. It is not disputed that the project for which the tender is floated in this case by the NMRCL is not in respect of an underground railway or metro. 4.2 (a) was for an intercity high speed railway project in China and in the said contract, the petitioner had completed a viaduct of 7.284 km length. It is not disputed that the project for which the tender is floated in this case by the NMRCL is not in respect of an underground railway or metro. It is stated on behalf of the NMRCL that it would be an elevated metro. The petitioner has admittedly constructed a viaduct of not less than 5 km for the prestigious Pearl River Delta Intercity high speed railway project in China. We find on a reading of the Tender Conditions and particularly clause 4.2 (a) thereof that a contractor or a joint venture Company is required to have the experience in Metro Civil Construction work and of completing a viaduct having a length of not less than 5 kms. We do not appreciate the submission on behalf of the respondent that since the petitioner had constructed the viaduct for a high speed railway project, the petitioner would not have the experience of constructing a viaduct for a Metro. It is not disputed by the respondent that 'metro' would mean a railway or an underground railway. If that be so, we fail to fathom as to why the technical bid of the petitioner was disqualified though the petitioner has constructed a viaduct for Pearl River Delta Intercity high speed railway project in China of the length of 7.284 km. In our view, the petitioner has the experience of constructing a viaduct of not less than 5 kms in length in a Metro Civil Construction work contract and had also received more than INR 3200 million for satisfactorily completing the said contract. The distinction sought to be made by the respondent NMRCL between the construction of a viaduct for Intercity High Speed Railway Project and the construction of a viaduct for the metro rail project, is illusory and not real. The action on the part of the NMRCL of disqualifying the petitioner's technical bid is clearly arbitrary and is liable to be set aside. We are also surprised to find that though the technical bids were opened on 28.6.2016 and the petitioner's technical bid was disqualified, the petitioner was conveyed about the decision only vide communication dated 23.7.2015, on the day on which the financial bids of the other tenderers were opened. 9. We are also surprised to find that though the technical bids were opened on 28.6.2016 and the petitioner's technical bid was disqualified, the petitioner was conveyed about the decision only vide communication dated 23.7.2015, on the day on which the financial bids of the other tenderers were opened. 9. In the circumstances, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned communication disqualifying the technical bid of the petitioner, is quashed and set aside. We direct the respondent NMRCL to open the financial bid of the petitioner and consider the same along with the other eligible bidders. Rule is made absolute in the above terms with no order as to costs.