ORDER Sharma, J. -- 1. The petitioner before this Court has filed present petition being aggrieved by order dated 31.10.2016 passed by Executive Director (Purchase), Madhya Pradesh Paschim Kshetra Vidhyut Vitran Company Ltd. by which the petitioner’s offer in respect of Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) submitted by the petitioner has been declared to be ‘non-responsive’ and it has been held that no order can be placed to the petitioner. 2. The facts of the case reveal that the respondent Madhya Pradesh Paschim Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Ltd., an Electricity Transmission Company owned and controlled by State of Madhya Pradesh, has floated Notice Inviting Tender on 8.8.2016 for electrification work under the ‘Deen Dayal Upadhyay Gram Jyoti Yojna’ for various districts. 3. The petitioner submitted his bid in response to the NIT and the acknowledgment is on record as Ann.P-3 dated 30.9.2016. The petitioner was shortlisted and his bid was the lowest as stated by him. He was placed at L-1 category and the comparative chart showing the petitioner’s placement as L-1 is on record as Annexure P-5. 4. The petitioner’s grievance is that in spite of being the lowest and at serial No.1, no work order was issued in his favour and in fact a complaint was submitted by respondent No.3 to respondents No.1 and 2 on 10.10.2016 wherein it was stated that the petitioner has been blacklisted by Madhya Pradesh Housing Infrastructure Development Board by order dated 29.4.2016 and has been deregistered and therefore, his tender should be rejected. 5. Facts further reveal that on the basis of complaint the respondent No.2, a letter was issued on 19.10.2016 and explanation was sought from the petitioner and the petitioner did submit an explanation in response to the notice issued by the respondents. The respondents thereafter, passed the impugned order declaring the petitioner’s bid as ‘non-responsive’ and has held that no work order can be placed to the petitioner. While all this was going on, a work order dated 3.11.2016 has been issued in favour of respondent No.3 and an agreement has also been signed to execute the work order on 8.12.2016. 6. The respondents No.1 and 2 have passed a reasoned order assigning the reasons for holding the bid of the petitioner as ‘non-responsive’ and the impugned order passed by the respondent dated 31.10.2016 reads as under: Office of the MD (WZ) M.P. Paschim Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. 6. The respondents No.1 and 2 have passed a reasoned order assigning the reasons for holding the bid of the petitioner as ‘non-responsive’ and the impugned order passed by the respondent dated 31.10.2016 reads as under: Office of the MD (WZ) M.P. Paschim Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd. GPH Compound Polo Ground, Indore No.MD/WZ/DDUGJY/Lot-01(Alirajpur)/18898 Indore, dated 31.10.2016 To, M/s. Mohd. Aarif Sheikh, 3-A, Sainath Colony, Barwani M.P. 451551 Sub : Intimation regarding non-responsivness of your offer in Tender specification No. MPPSKVVCL/DDUGJY/ALIRAJPUR/LOT- 01 dated 8.8.2016 for LOT-01 of Alirajpur District under O&M Circle Jhabua under DDUGJY scheme. Ref : (i) NIT No.MD/WZ/PUR/06/NIT-144/857 Indore dated 8.8.2016 (ii) Tender Specification No. MPPSKVVCL/DDUGJY/ ALIRAJPUR/LOT-01 dated 8.8.2016 and Subsequent Addendum-1 uploaded on dated 8.9.2016. Amendments 1 to 5 uploaded on dated 6.9.2016 to 26.9.2016 pre-bid meeting queries replies. (iii) Techno-commercial offer of your bid opened on dated 30.9.2016. (iv) This office letter No.MD/WZ/06/PUR/DDUGJY/NIT-144/ TS- 1037/LOT-1/1732 Indore dated 4.10.2016. (v) Your reply thereof dated 6.10.2016. (vi) Your price bid for Lot-01 opened on dated 7.10.2016. 1. As per MP Housing Board, Bhopal order No.36/11-58-G-14/(Ni.ni. Sha)/2014 dated 10.7.2015, your registration was suspended for three years and debarred for participation in tendering during suspension period. Further your appeal was also rejected by M.P. Housing Board vide their letter No.36/11-58-G-14 / (Ni.ni. Shakha)/2016 Bhopal dated 29.4.2016. 2. An explanation was called from your firm vide this office letter no. MD/WZ/06/PUR/18118 Indore dated 19.10.2016 and on going through your reply (vides letter No.1135 dated 22.10.2016) and as per the letter of MP Housing Board vide No.1734/(Tak.Sha.) M/2016 Bhopal dated 24.10.2016 it is confirmed that your firm has been debarred for three years Debarring of you firm for three years has also been displayed on PWD Website. (Copy enclosed) 3. Whereas, you have mentioned “No litigation” in the Litigation History submitted with your offer against our tender referred above under clause No.9.3(n ii) of ITB and also knowingly misleaded the MPPKVVCL (as per clause No.35 a (ii) ITB). The fact of debarring from MP Housing Board was hidden by you at the time of bid. Hence in light of above facts and as per clause ITB 9.3(n ii), 31.1 and 35 a(ii), your bid for Lot-01 of Alirajpur District under O and M Circle Jhabua under DDUGJY scheme is declared as “non-responsive” and as such no order can be placed to you. Executive Director (Purchase) O/o (WZ) MPPKVVCL, Indore. 7. Hence in light of above facts and as per clause ITB 9.3(n ii), 31.1 and 35 a(ii), your bid for Lot-01 of Alirajpur District under O and M Circle Jhabua under DDUGJY scheme is declared as “non-responsive” and as such no order can be placed to you. Executive Director (Purchase) O/o (WZ) MPPKVVCL, Indore. 7. The relevant clauses on the basis of which the petitioner’s bid has been treated as ‘non-responsive’ as contained under the terms and conditions of the NIT under 9.3(n)(ii) and 35(a)(ii) and the same reads as under : “9.3(n)(ii) Detailed information on any litigation or arbitration arising out of contracts completed or under execution by it over the last five years. A consistent history of awards involving litigation against the Bidder or nay partner of JV may result in rejection of Bid. 35(a)(ii) “fraudulent practice” is any act or omission, including a misrepresentation, that knowingly or recklessly misleads or attempts to mislead, a party to obtain a financial or other benefit or to avoid an obligation.” 8. The existence of the aforesaid clauses in the tender documents have not been disputed by the petitioner. The facts of the case further reveal that M. P. Housing Board which is again a State Control Body has by an order dated 10.7.2015 debarred the petitioner to take part in any contract for a period of three years. The aforesaid document is on record as Ann.R-2 of the reply filed by the respondents No.1 and 2. 9. The petitioner has thereafter, preferred an appeal against the order of blacklisting him and by an order dated 25.9.2016, the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed. It is true that the petitioner has preferred a writ petition against the order passed by M.P. Housing Board and in Writ Petition No.3518/2016, this Court by an order dated 15.12.2016 has stayed the order blacklisting the petitioner and the writ petition is still pending. 10. It is true that the petitioner has preferred a writ petition against the order passed by M.P. Housing Board and in Writ Petition No.3518/2016, this Court by an order dated 15.12.2016 has stayed the order blacklisting the petitioner and the writ petition is still pending. 10. The petitioner’s contention is that as per clause 9.3(n)(ii), he was required to give details of litigation history or arbitration in respect of contract completed or under completion by him for the last five years and therefore, as in the matter of blacklisting, the contract was neither completed nor was under completion, there was no necessity on the part of the petitioner to furnish the information to the respondents and therefore, the action of the respondents in treating the bid of the petitioner as ‘non-responsive’ by taking shelter of clause 9.3(n)(ii), is bad in law. 11. The petitioner has further stated that the action of the respondent in taking shelter of clause 35(a)(ii) is again misleading. There was no fraudulent practice on the part of the petitioner and therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and the petitioner is entitled to carry out the work as he is L-One. 12. This Court has carefully gone through the clause 35 also. Clause 9 read with clause 35 casts a duty upon the petitioner to furnish ‘history of litigation’ and the petitioner has deliberately suppressed the history of the litigation for obvious reasons. Nothing prevented the petitioner to inform the respondents No.1 and 2 about the order passed in respect of blacklisting, dismissal of the appeal and pendency of Writ Petition No.3518/2016. 13. It is true that this Court has stayed the order of blacklisting dated 29.7.2015 in Writ Petition No.3518/2016, but the fact remains that the petitioner has suppressed the history of litigation while submitting a tender. 13. It is true that this Court has stayed the order of blacklisting dated 29.7.2015 in Writ Petition No.3518/2016, but the fact remains that the petitioner has suppressed the history of litigation while submitting a tender. The State Government has issued an order dated 17.8.2011 in the matter of blacklisting and in order to ensure that unscrupulous element do not participate in the tender process in respect of other bodies of the State Government, the aforesaid order has been issued and the State Government has directed that once a Contractor has been blacklisted by the State, other departments of the State Government including Boards, Companies, other organization will also not permit the contractor blacklisted to carry out the work obviously as the other departments of the State Government are being funded by the State Government. 14. In the present case, undisputedly the present petitioner has not provided detail information of the litigation and that enough is a good reason to treat the petitioner’s bid as ‘non-responsive’. Much has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner stating that the order passed in respect of blacklisting by the M.P. Housing Board has been stayed. 15. In the case of M/s. S. Singh and Company v. State of M.P. and others, reported in 2014 SCC Online MP 5317, a Division Bench of this Court in paragraph No.7 has held as under : “7. In the matter of black listing or suspending the registration of a contractor, a writ Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution has a very limited role to play. It is only to be seen as to whether proper opportunity of hearing before taking the impugned action is granted and the requirement of the principles of natural justice followed. What is subjected to judicial review in such cases is only the decision making process and not the decision itself. Judicial review in such cases is limited to extent to see as to whether the decision taken is so perverse or arbitrary in nature that the Wednesbury theory of reasonableness get attracted. That being the limited scope of review, we propose to consider the matter in the light of the legal principles as indicated hereinabove.” 16. In the matter of blacklisting of the petitioner by M.P. Housing Board, the writ Court is certainly having a limited jurisdiction. That being the limited scope of review, we propose to consider the matter in the light of the legal principles as indicated hereinabove.” 16. In the matter of blacklisting of the petitioner by M.P. Housing Board, the writ Court is certainly having a limited jurisdiction. Not only this, the order passed by the M.P. Housing Board has not been quashed so far. Moresoever, the petitioner has suppressed the history of the litigation which he was required to disclose at the time of submitting bid. 17. The apex Court in the case of Patna Regional Development Authority and others v. Rashtriya Pariyojana Nirman Nigam and others, reported in (1996)4 SCC 529 , was dealing with almost a similar case where a blacklisted contractor who was earlier blacklisted was not given contract, even though he was the lowest bidder and the contract was given to the next lowest bidder who on negotiation with respondents therein has agreed to work at the rate offered by the lowest bidder. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case in paragraphs No.2 and 7 to 9 has held as under : “2. The Patna Regional Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the ‘appellants’) invited tenders tor the construction of a high rise building ‘Maurya Towers’ in the town of Patna. Of the three bids which were submitted, the bid of the first respondent, namely, Rashtriya Pariyojana Nirman Nigam was found to be the lowest. The second lowest bid was of respondent No.4, M/s.Walia Builders. Although the tender submitted by the first respondent was the lowest, the Tender Committee took into account the fact that the first respondent had been black-listed for a period of five years by the Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar under a black-listing order dated 26.9.1991, and decided not to award the contract to the first respondent. Instead, it awarded the contract to the fourth respondent. The fourth respondent, after negotiation, agreed to do the work at the rates offered by the first respondent. 7. The decision of the Tender Committee taken on 30.5.1995 not to award the contract to the first respondent has been set aside by the Division Bench of the High Court only on the ground that the order of black-listing is not a valid order. Hence the decision of the Tender Committee requires to be re-considered. The very basis for this finding is defective. Hence the decision of the Tender Committee requires to be re-considered. The very basis for this finding is defective. In considering whether the decision of the Tender Committee to award the tender to the fourth respondent is arbitrary or unreasonable, one will have to examine the existing circumstances at the time when the decision was taken. The Tender Committee rightly took into account the fact that the Water Resources Department of the State of Bihar had black-listed the first respondent for a period of five years. This was a relevant consideration in deciding whether a tender should be awarded to the first respondent. There was no challenge to the black-listing order at the relevant time. The performance record of the first respondent while executing previous contracts was relevant in deciding whether to award the contract to the first respondent or note. The impugned decision thus took into account relevent factors. It cannot be considered as arbitrary or unreasonable. 8. The first respondent contended that the order of blacklisting was not in force because even after 1991, it had been awarded two contracts. The first contract referred to in this connection by the first respondent is a contract for the construction of the Lok Nayak Bhawan given to it by the Patna Zilla Parishad. This contract was awarded to the first respondent before 27.2.1991 and prior to the order of black-listing. The second contract relied upon is by the Chief Engineer, Rural Engineering Organization of Chotta Nagpur and Santhal Pargana Wing. This contract relates to the Bihar Plato Development Project and was awarded to the first respondent in 1994. On enquiry from the appellants, the Chief Engineer of the Rural Engineering Organization informed the appellants that when the contract was awarded to the first respondent, the fact of its having been black- listed in the State of Bihar was not brought to his notice. It was because of the suppression of this information that the work was allotted to the first respondent. This contention of the first respondent, therefore, has no force. 9. The first respondent also contends that the disqualification imposed by the State Government will not automatically disqualify the first respondent qua the appellants, an autonomous body. It was because of the suppression of this information that the work was allotted to the first respondent. This contention of the first respondent, therefore, has no force. 9. The first respondent also contends that the disqualification imposed by the State Government will not automatically disqualify the first respondent qua the appellants, an autonomous body. The appellants, however, can legitimately take into account the fact that The first respondent has been blacklisted by the Water Resources Department, State of Bihar, in deciding whether to give work to the first respondent or not.” 18. In light of the aforesaid, in almost similar circumstances the action of Rashtriya Pariyojana Nirman Nigam (a Government body) in awarding contract to a person who was not lowest (second lowest) was held to be legal by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 19. The petitioner is certainly not a bidder who come with clean hand. There is certainly suppression of fact by the petitioner in respect of litigation history. He has been debarred by the Madhya Pradesh Housing Infrastructure Development Board, though the matter is sub judice before this Court i.e. Writ Petition No.3518/2016 and therefore, the respondents were justified in awarding the contract to a person who was the second lowest bidder and who has accepted to carry out the work by reducing the price and who has matched the price with the lowest bidder i.e. petitioner. 20. In the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned order passed by the respondent which has been passed after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, keeping in view the terms and conditions of the Notice Inviting Tender, can never said to be a decision perverse or arbitrary in the nature that the Wednesbury theory of reasonableness gets attracted. 21. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the respondents No.1 and 2 and the the net result is that the petition stands dismissed.