JUDGMENT Sandeep Mehta, J. - The petitioner submitted its bid in furtherance of a tender notice dated 09.12.2017 whereby, tenders were invited for road maintenance works under the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana. The petitioner filed its bid for the district Hanumangarh. The petitioner's bid was declared non-responsive by the respondent authorities on 23/24.01.2018 with reference to Clauses No.16.1, 16.2 and 16.3 of the bid documents which reads as below: "16.1- The Bidder shall furnish, as part of the Bid, Bid Security, in the amount specified in the Appendix to ITB. 16.2- The Bid Security shall be in the form of Fixed Deposit Receipt of a scheduled commercial bank, issued in favour of the name given in the Appendix to ITB. The Fixed Deposit Receipt shall be valid for minimum 45 days beyond the validity of bid. Other forms of Bid Security acceptable to the Employer are stated in the Appendix to ITB. 16.3- Any bid not accompanied by an acceptable Bid Security, unless exempted in terms givenin the Appendix to ITB and not secured as indicated in sub-clause 16.1 and 16.2, shall be rejected by the Employer as non-responsive." 2. The bid of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the Fixed Deposit Receipt submitted by the petitioner was valid only for 120 days and not for 135 days in terms of the above conditions No.16.1, 16.2 and 16.3. 3. On the previous date of hearing i.e. on 05.03.2018, Shri Joshi drew the Court's attention to the information supplied by the respondents to the petitioner under the RTI Act indicating that in identical tender process, the respondents have accepted the FDR's submitted by the respective bidder with a validity of 120 days only. 4. Learned Government Counsel has also filed an additional affidavit in response indicating that the FDR of 120 days submitted by one Alankar Construction in a similar tender process was accepted by the PWD. It is also not disputed that the petitioner had, at a subsequent stage, secured and submitted a certificate from the bank indicating that the fixed deposit would be auto extendable at the instance of the department. 5. At this stage, Shri Mukesh Dave, on instruction of the officer in-charge submits that the petitioner's bid may be considered as responsive in the questioned tender process. 6. 5. At this stage, Shri Mukesh Dave, on instruction of the officer in-charge submits that the petitioner's bid may be considered as responsive in the questioned tender process. 6. In this background, manifestly, the action of the respondents in holding the petitioner's bid non-responsive merely on the ground that the FDR submitted by the petitioner as bid security was only of 120 days validity is arbitrary and discriminatory and is thus, contrary to the fundamental right of equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 7. Thus, the writ petition is allowed. The decision taken by the respondents to declare the petitioner's bid non-responsive vide order dated 23.01.2018 is hereby quashed and set aside. As a consequence, the orders passed by the appellate authorities are also quashed. The respondents are directed to consider the petitioner's bid as responsive in the questioned tender process.