JUDGMENT : M.R. SHAH, J. 1. Rule. Shri D.M.Devnani, learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent No.1, Ms.Anuja Nanavati, learned advocate, waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent No.2 and Shri Ravi Karnavat, learned advocate, waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent No.3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties, the present petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the decision of respondent No.2 – Gujarat Cancer and Research Institute in considering the bid of respondent No.3 as eligible. It is further prayed for an appropriate direction or order, directing disqualification of respondent No.3 on account of its technical bid not satisfying the tender requirement and specifications. 3. The facts leading to the present Special Civil Application and chronological dates and events which are necessary for the purpose of deciding the present petition in nutshell are as under:- 3.1. On 04.10.2017, respondent No.2 herein published Tender No.282960 inviting the bid inquiry for supply, installation, testing and commissioning of various types of 19 operation theatres for respondent No.2 – Hospital at Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad. The bidding methodology was a two-bid system, namely, a technical bid and a financial bid. The estimated contract value is of Rs.16,47,34,080/-. The prebidding of the tender took place on 13.10.2017. The last date of submission of the bids was 30.10.2017, which was subsequently postponed by way of three corrigendum to 05.01.2018. The tender document mandated that the documents and bids were to be submitted on-line. The tender document contained the terms and conditions and also provided the eligibility criteria/technical specifications. The dispute in the present petition is with respect to Automatic Hermetic Sealing Sliding Doors. That the important technical specifications for the aforesaid as per the tender document, inter alia, are as follows:- “(i) All door and door frames shall be made of stainless steel material. (ii) Stainless steel material – Nr.1.4301, SS 304 grade only. (iii) The thickness of stainless steel door frame and door panel surfaces shall not be less than 1.5 mm. (iv) All doors should have sturdy SS door handles on both sides. (ii) Stainless steel material – Nr.1.4301, SS 304 grade only. (iii) The thickness of stainless steel door frame and door panel surfaces shall not be less than 1.5 mm. (iv) All doors should have sturdy SS door handles on both sides. (v) All doors shall have vision panels (viewing window) at least 300 mm x 300 mm (vi) Automatic doors shall have potential equalization (earthing) as per VDE 0107 or equivalent guaranteed by a sliding contact. (vii) Its automation unit shall be short-circuit proof and shall have an integrated power supply unit 200-240V, 50-60 Hz, 24V~/2A and shall comply with ISO9001 and CE requirements. (viii) There are two sizes required 2100 mm x 1500 mm & 2100 mm x 900 mm, stainless steel door frame grid is to be designed accordingly. (ix) The door leaf 60 mm thick should have sealing system in closed position. (x) All the buttons and conductive push strip should be mounted on stainless steel door frame and should come pre-wired internally from factory. (xi) Certificate of country of origin and manufacturers test certificates to be submitted after installation.” 3.2 That the petitioner and three bidders, including respondent No.3, submitted their bids on or before the last date of submission of bids, i.e. 05.01.2018. That on 06.01.2018, the technical bids of all the bidders came to be opened by respondent No.2. It appears that the petitioner as well as respondent No.3 offered the aforesaid item, namely, Automatic Hermetic Sealing Sliding Doors, having the make of Metaflex Doors India Pvt. Ltd. It is required to be noted that so far as the petitioner is concerned, the petitioner offered the said item having the make of Metaflex Doors India Pvt. Ltd. as well as other two make/manufacturers. That the tender document required the doors and the frames of stainless steel material of 1.4301 SS 304 Grade only. It appears that as per the specification of the item having the make of Metaflex Doors India Pvt. Ltd. offered by respondent No.3 and even the petitioner, the said produced was not as per the specifications required, namely they offered the door and door frames of aluminum in place of stainless steel. The standard specifications further required the stainless steel sheets having door frame and panel services of the thickness of not less than 1.5 mm. However, the item offered was having the thickness of 0.6 to 1.0 mm only. The standard specifications further required the stainless steel sheets having door frame and panel services of the thickness of not less than 1.5 mm. However, the item offered was having the thickness of 0.6 to 1.0 mm only. The earthing required by the tender specification had to be as per VDE 0107. However, the item received was having the earthing as per the NEN 3134. 3.3 It appears that thereafter, a meeting of the Tender Committee was held on 08.02.2018. As is evident from the minutes of the meeting of the Tender Committee dated 08.02.2018, the Committee observed as under:- “....Tender committee also observed that M/s. MDD Medical Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. in their technical bid has mentioned against the technical specification No.6 as follows: (6) As per our Technical Specifications, all doors and door frames shall be made of stainless steel material – Nr.1.4301, SS 304 grade only and as per M/s. MDD Medical Services, they have mentioned in compliance that they provide door frame of aluminum instead of stainless steel also the thickness of SS sheet used for door frame and door panel surfaces shall not be less than 1.5 mm and asper M/s.MDD Medical Services, they have mentioned in compliance that thickness of SS sheet 0.6 to 1 mm. Committee has decided to call the bidder and if he can correct his deficiency, we may consider his tender. Non compliance even if this may be treated as rejection of tender. As per the report of Chartered Accountant and scrutiny by the technical and tender committee, following 4 bidders tender is accepted in the preliminary stage. 1. M/s. MDD Medical Systems (India) Private Limited 2. M/s. PES Installations Private Limited 3. M/s. Malani Constructions Co. 4. M/s. Medical Product Services” 3.4 It appears that thereafter, vide communication dated 10.03.2018, respondent No.2 sought clarification from the petitioner to clarify that which Company’s door the petitioner is going to provide, with compliance sheet of the technical specification, as the petitioner gave the names of two different manufacturing companies, one M/s.Metaflex Doors India Pvt. Ltd. and second, M/s.Gaze. 4. M/s. Medical Product Services” 3.4 It appears that thereafter, vide communication dated 10.03.2018, respondent No.2 sought clarification from the petitioner to clarify that which Company’s door the petitioner is going to provide, with compliance sheet of the technical specification, as the petitioner gave the names of two different manufacturing companies, one M/s.Metaflex Doors India Pvt. Ltd. and second, M/s.Gaze. It further appears that vide communication dated 13.03.2018, the petitioner clarified that so far as Metaflex Doors India Pvt. Ltd. is concerned, it does not comply with the tender specifications in totality as Metaflex Doors India Pvt. Ltd. can give the steel doors of 0.8 mm thickness only with door frame of aluminum and also they cannot give 1 meter conductive push strip on both sides of door. Therefore, the petitioner clarified that they will be supplying either PES or Gaze make as both comply to the tender specifications in totality. It appears and it is evident from the communication dated 21.02.2018 of respondent No.3 addressed to the Director of respondent No.2 that respondent No.3 was called for personal meeting on 21.02.2018. It further appears that respondent No.3 submitted another compliance sheet from the manufacturer M/s.Metaflex Doors India Pvt. Ltd. confirming full compliance to the tender specifications, along with its communication dated 21.02.2018. (Page 251 to 253). 3.5 It appears that thereafter once again, respondent No.2 sought further clarifications from the manufacturer Metaflex Doors India Pvt. Ltd. vide communication dated 08.03.2018 and requested the said manufacturer to confirm whether they manufacture and supply the metaflex doors, fully complying the technical specifications, more particularly, as per the specifications mentioned in the communication dated 08.03.2018. That on the very day, Metaflex Doors India Pvt. Ltd. - manufacturer, specifically pointed out that all the doors which they are giving are with silver anodised aluminum extruded profile wall frame (2 mm profile thickness) only, and that as regards the door panel sheet thickness, maximum they can give is 0.8 mm SS. Metaflex Doors India Pvt. Ltd. also specifically confirmed that the door size “OK” but they don’t provide SS door frame and that they provide aluminum frame grid. Metaflex Doors India Pvt. Ltd. also specifically confirmed that the door size “OK” but they don’t provide SS door frame and that they provide aluminum frame grid. 3.6 That thereafter, once again, on 21.03.2018, respondent No.2 asked respondent No.3 to get confirmed from Metaflex Doors India Pvt. Ltd. and submit whether the product to be supplied would be as per the technical specifications, more particularly, regarding the stainless steel frame and the thickness of the doors of 1.5 mm. In response thereto, vide communication dated 22.03.2018, respondent No.3 produced another communication from the manufacturer - Metaflex Doors India Pvt. Ltd. dated 22.03.2018 along with the technical compliance, stating that now they are ready to provide SS 304 grade Automatic Hermatic Sealing Sliding Doors with thickness of 1.5 mm. Respondent No.3 produced along with the said communication dated 22.03.2018, the technical compliance sheet from Metaflex Doors India Pvt. Ltd. stating that it fully meets the technical specifications of the tender. 3.7 It appears that thereafter, the Tender Committee held its meeting on 29.03.2018 and after considering the technical scrutiny report given by the Technical Committee, took a conscious decision to reject the technical bid of respondent No.3 by observing that the specifications are not as per the Technical Committee’s requirements. It appears that the minutes of the meeting of the Technical Committee held on 29.03.2018 and its decision was communicated to the Director of respondent No.2 vide communication dated 11.04.2018, conveying the decision of the Tender Committee that the technical bid of respondent No.3 is rejected. It was also communicated that the bid submitted by the petitioner i.e. PES Installations Private Limited and other bidders, namely, Medical Product Services and Malani Construction be accepted. That thereafter, the technical bids of the eligible bidders came to be opened on 13.04.2018. The petitioner was found to be “L-1” amongst other successful technical bidders. However, thereafter, the petitioner was called and asked to remain present for negotiations on 05.05.2018 and again on 09.05.2018. That thereafter, the technical bids of the eligible bidders came to be opened on 13.04.2018. The petitioner was found to be “L-1” amongst other successful technical bidders. However, thereafter, the petitioner was called and asked to remain present for negotiations on 05.05.2018 and again on 09.05.2018. At that stage and after the financial bids were opened and the petitioner was found to be “L-1” and the petitioner was called for further negotiations, respondent No.3 approached this Court by way of Special Civil Application No.7202/2018 for the following reliefs: “(a) Will be further pleased to issue a writ, direction or order in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside entire notice inviting Tender No. being IFB/Tender Notice No. Re-tender-5-A of 2017- 18 (Tender ID 282960) for work of supply, installation, testing and commissioning of various types of Modular Operation Theatres for GCRI Hospital at Civil Hospital, Asarwa, Ahmedabad dated 04/10/2017 along with technical specifications; (b) Be further pleased to issue a direction to the respondents to conduct the whole tender process afresh after amending the specification in accordance with guidelines laid down by CVC to make entire contract generic in nature with regard to supply, installation, testing and commissioning of various types of Modular Operation Theatres for GCRI Hospital at Civil Hospital, Asarwa, Ahmedabad. (c) Issue a writ, direction or order in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing the action of rejection of technical bid of the petitioner at Annexure 1 dated 19/04/2018. (d) Pending admission and final hearing of the petition the Hon’ble High Court will be pleased to direct the respondents not to take any action including issuing letter of intent/letter of award of work in furtherance of the notice inviting Tender no. being IFB/Tender Notice No. Re-tender-5-A of 2017-18 (Tender ID 282960) for work of supply, installation, testing and commissioning of various types of Modular Operation Theatres of GCRI Hospital at Civil Hospital, Asarwa, Ahmedabad.” 3.8 That the Division Bench of this Court issued Notice in the aforesaid Special Civil Application vide order dated 07.05.2018, making it returnable on 09.05.2018. being IFB/Tender Notice No. Re-tender-5-A of 2017-18 (Tender ID 282960) for work of supply, installation, testing and commissioning of various types of Modular Operation Theatres of GCRI Hospital at Civil Hospital, Asarwa, Ahmedabad.” 3.8 That the Division Bench of this Court issued Notice in the aforesaid Special Civil Application vide order dated 07.05.2018, making it returnable on 09.05.2018. On the returnable date, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 made a statement that there had been some technical error by which the petitioner was declared/considered technically disqualified and a statement was made that the petitioner shall be considered as eligible and the bid of the petitioner shall be opened and shall be considered in accordance with law and on merits along with other eligible bidders. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid statement, the respondents were directed to act accordingly and aforesaid Special Civil Application came to be disposed of by Division Bench of this Court. At this stage, it is required to be noted that the said Special Civil Application came to be disposed of not on merits but on the statement made by the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and the Division Bench of this Court did not consider on merits, the eligibility of respondent No.3 herein – the petitioner of that petition. It is also required to be noted that even in the said Special Civil Application, the petitioner herein was also not joined as a party respondent and therefore, the petitioner was not a party to the said proceedings. That thereafter, having come to know that respondent No.2 has considered respondent No.3 as technically qualified, the petitioner has preferred the present Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the decision of respondent No.2 in not accepting the bid of petitioner at the technical stage and considering respondent No.3 as eligible and technically qualified. 4. Shri Mihir Joshi, learned Senior Advocate has appeared with Shri Anuj K. Trivedi, learned advocate on behalf of the petitioner, Shri R.S.Sanjanwala, learned Senior Advocate has appeared with Ms.Anuja S. Nanavati, learned advocate for respondent No.2 and Shri Ravi Karnavat, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of respondent No.3. 5. 4. Shri Mihir Joshi, learned Senior Advocate has appeared with Shri Anuj K. Trivedi, learned advocate on behalf of the petitioner, Shri R.S.Sanjanwala, learned Senior Advocate has appeared with Ms.Anuja S. Nanavati, learned advocate for respondent No.2 and Shri Ravi Karnavat, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of respondent No.3. 5. Shri Mihir Joshi, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the bid submitted by respondent No.3 and the product offered was not as per the specifications as per the tender document and the tender specific document submitted by respondent No.3 along with the bid was not meeting with the specifications and even at one point of time, respondent No.3 was already held technically disqualified as not meeting with the specifications as per the tender document, therefore, the subsequent decision of respondent No.2 in treating and/or considering respondent No.3 technically qualified is absolutely illegal, arbitrary and perverse. 5.1 It is vehemently submitted by Shri Mihir Joshi, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the entire procedure which has been followed by respondent No.2 after the opening of the technical bids, namely, more than one times calling for further clarifications and/or calling upon respondent No.3 and the manufacturer - Metaflex Doors India Pvt. Ltd. to confirm the specifications as per the tender document is absolutely illegal, arbitrary and not permissible under the law. 5.2 It is submitted by Shri Mihir Joshi, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that as such, the last date for submitting the bid was 05.01.2018. It is submitted that respondent No.3, in its technical bid offering the item in question having the make of Metaflex Doors India Pvt. Ltd. which at the relevant point of time and even till the first decision was taken to reject the bid of respondent No.3 at the technical stage, was not meeting with the specifications required as per the tender document. It is submitted that admittedly, respondent No.3 offered the doors and the door frames of aluminum in place of stainless steel (as required as per the tender specifications) and also offered stainless steel sheets having door frame and panel services of the thickness of 0.6 to 1.0 mm only as against the requirement of 1.5 mm. It is submitted that admittedly, respondent No.3 offered the doors and the door frames of aluminum in place of stainless steel (as required as per the tender specifications) and also offered stainless steel sheets having door frame and panel services of the thickness of 0.6 to 1.0 mm only as against the requirement of 1.5 mm. It is submitted that the product which was to be offered by Metaflex Doors India Pvt. Ltd. was not as per the specifications of the tender document. It is submitted that despite the above, respondent No.2, by various subsequent communications under the guise of clarifications, virtually gave opportunities/chance to respondent No.3 to submit additional bid, which is not permissible. 5.3 It is further submitted by Shri Mihir Joshi, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that a further opportunity is given by respondent No.2 to respondent No.3 vide communications after the last date of submission of bids which is absolutely illegal and arbitrary. It is submitted that once the bids were submitted, thereafter, respondent No.2 could not have given further opportunity to respondent No.3 by way of various correspondences calling upon respondent No.3 to confirm to the specifications as per the tender document. It is submitted that whatever is provided along with the bids can only be considered. It is further submitted by Shri Mihir Joshi, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that even the conduct on the part of respondent No.2 directly calling upon the manufacturer Metaflex Doors India Pvt. Ltd. to confirm to the specifications of the tender document is also uncalled for and arbitrary. 5.4 It is further submitted by Shri Mihir Joshi, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that even subsequently, when the manufacturer – Metaflex Doors India Pvt. Ltd. sent a communication on 08.03.2018, Metaflex Doors India Pvt. Ltd. specifically submitted and stated that they do not provide stainless door frame and that they provide aluminum frame grid and that they can provide door panel sheet with thickness of maximum 0.8 mm ss. It is submitted that therefore, even on 08.03.2018, the offer of the product was not as per the specifications provided in the tender document. It is submitted that despite the above, once again, respondent No.2 called upon respondent No.3 to get reconfirmation from Metaflex Doors India Pvt. Ltd. and submit the same to it immediately. It is submitted that therefore, even on 08.03.2018, the offer of the product was not as per the specifications provided in the tender document. It is submitted that despite the above, once again, respondent No.2 called upon respondent No.3 to get reconfirmation from Metaflex Doors India Pvt. Ltd. and submit the same to it immediately. It is submitted that in the communication dated 21.03.2018, by which respondent No.3 was asked to get re-confirmation from Metaflex Doors India Pvt. Ltd., it is specifically observed that as per Metaflex Doors India Pvt. Ltd. the doors the are manufacturing have thickness of 0.8 mm only, however, the requirement is 1.5 mm. It is submitted that the said communication and the opportunity is also absolutely illegal, mala fide and arbitrary. 5.5 It is further submitted by Shri Mihir Joshi, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that even in the technical compliance sheet of Metaflex Doors India Pvt. Ltd. produced along with the communication dated 21.02.2018 (on page 253), except at the bottom stating that “we meet all the compliances”, nothing specific has been mentioned with respect to specifications. It is submitted that as such, the said compliance sheet produced along with the communication dated 21.02.2018 in which it is stated that “we meet all the compliances” was false and incorrect as in the communication dated 08.03.2018, Metaflex Doors India Pvt. Ltd. specifically stated that they do not provide stainless door frame and they provide aluminum frame grid and that as regards the door panel sheet thickness, maximum they can give is 0.8 mm SS (against the requirement of SS door frame and minimum thickness of 1.5 mm stainless steel). It is submitted that only on the basis of the subsequent giving of opportunity vide communication dated 22.03.2018, for the first time, respondent No.3 and Metaflex Doors India Pvt. Ltd. came out with a case that they will provide SS 304 grade Automatic Hermatic Sealing Sliding Doors with thickness of 1.5 mm. It is submitted that only on the basis of the subsequent giving of opportunity vide communication dated 22.03.2018, for the first time, respondent No.3 and Metaflex Doors India Pvt. Ltd. came out with a case that they will provide SS 304 grade Automatic Hermatic Sealing Sliding Doors with thickness of 1.5 mm. It is submitted that therefore, and considering all aforesaid facts and circumstances and at the time when respondent No.3 submitted its bid and offered to supply the item manufactured by Metaflex Doors India Pvt. Ltd. it did not conform with the eligibility criteria and/or specification as per the tender document, the bid submitted by respondent No.3 was required to be rejected at the technical stage and as such, the same was rightly rejected also. That however, for whatever reason, respondent No.2 made a statement before this Court and that too, after the financial bids were opened and the petitioner was found to be “L-1”, that respondent No.2 shall consider the bid of respondent No.3 valid and technically qualified. It is submitted that therefore, the action of respondent No.2 on the basis of subsequent correspondences and the opportunities given to respondent No.3 and thereafter and thereby considering respondent No.3 as technically qualified is absolutely illegal, perverse, arbitrary and non-transparent and therefore, the same cannot be sustained and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5.6 Making above submissions and relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of W.B. State Electricity Board v. Patel Engineering Ltd. And Others reported in (2001) 2 SCC 451 , it is requested to allow the present petition and grant the reliefs as prayed. 6. Shri R.S.Sanjanwala, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 has submitted that the subsequent decision taken by respondent No.2 subsequently considering the bid submitted by respondent No.3 as technically qualified is absolutely bona fide and on the basis of the subsequent clarifications by respondent No.3 and Metaflex Doors India Pvt. Ltd that they shall provide SS 304 grade Automatic Hermatic Sealing Sliding Doors with thickness of 1.5 mm. 6.1 It is further submitted by Shri R.S.Sanjanwala, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 that if ultimately, this Court comes to the conclusion and is of the opinion that the bid submitted by respondent No.3 on the basis of the document submitted along with the bid is liable to be rejected and this Court is of the opinion that nothing submitted after the bids are submitted is to be considered, and consequently, the bid submitted by respondent No.3 is liable to be rejected on the ground that the bid submitted by respondent No.3 for the subject tender No.282960 of the make Metaflex Doors India Pvt. Ltd. does not meet with the specification of the tender document, respondent No.2 shall abide by the same. However, he has submitted that there was no other mala fide intention on the part of respondent No.2 in subsequently considering the bid submitted by respondent No.3 as technically qualified. 7. Shri Ravi Karnavat, learned advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 has submitted that at the time when the earlier petition was preferred, respondent No.3 was not aware that the financial bid has been opened and the petitioner was found to be “L-1”. It is submitted that therefore, respondent No.3 bona fidely filed the aforesaid petition as respondent No.3 was of the opinion that considering the subsequent documents/correspondences, more particularly, the communication dated 22.03.2018 by respondent No.3 and Metaflex Doors India Pvt. Ltd., as the product to be supplied by respondent No.3, shall meet with the specification of the tender document, and therefore, the bid submitted by respondent No.3 is required to be considered, respondent No.3 preferred the aforesaid petition. 7.1 It is submitted by Shri Ravi Karnavat, learned advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.3, that as per Clause-iii of Clause-(iii) of General Instructions which is with respect to submission of documents, it was open for respondent No.2 to call for further clarification on the information provided by the bidder. It is submitted that therefore, further correspondences/clarifications sought by respondent No.2 is absolutely in accordance with the general terms and conditions. Therefore, it is requested to dismiss the present petition. 8. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length. It is submitted that therefore, further correspondences/clarifications sought by respondent No.2 is absolutely in accordance with the general terms and conditions. Therefore, it is requested to dismiss the present petition. 8. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, one of the bidders, has prayed for the aforesaid reliefs, more particularly, to quash and set aside the decision of respondent No.2 in considering and/or treating the bid submitted by respondent No.3 as technically qualified. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that at the time of submitting the bid, respondent No.3 offered to supply the item in question manufactured by Metaflex Doors India Pvt. Ltd. which did not conform to the specifications provided under the tender document. The dispute is with respect to supply, installation, testing and commissioning of Automatic Hermetic Sealing Sliding Doors for 19 operation theatres for respondent No.2 – Hospital at Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad, and therefore, while considering the issue involved in the present petition, the relevant specifications provided for the item in question as per the tender document are required to be considered, which are as under:- “(i) All door and door frames shall be made of stainless steel material. (ii) Stainless steel material – Nr.1.4301, SS 304 grade only. (iii) The thickness of stainless steel door frame and door panel surfaces shall not be less than 1.5 mm. (iv) All doors should have sturdy SS door handles on both sides. (v) All doors shall have vision panels (viewing window) at least 300 mm x 300 mm (vi) Automatic doors shall have potential equalization (earthing) as per VDE 0107 or equivalent guaranteed by a sliding contact. (vii) Its automation unit shall be short-circuit proof and shall have an integrated power supply unit 200-240V, 50-60 Hz, 24V~/2A and shall comply with ISO 9001 and CE requirements. (viii) There are two sizes required 2100 mm x 1500 mm & 2100 mm x 900 mm, stainless steel door frame grid is to be designed accordingly. (ix) The door leaf 60 mm thick should have sealing system in closed position. (x) All the buttons and conductive push strip should be mounted on stainless steel door frame and should come pre-wired internally from factory. (ix) The door leaf 60 mm thick should have sealing system in closed position. (x) All the buttons and conductive push strip should be mounted on stainless steel door frame and should come pre-wired internally from factory. (xi) Certificate of country of origin and manufacturers test certificates to be submitted after installation.” 8.1 It is an admitted position that respondent No.3 submitted the bid with respect to the item in question manufactured by Metaflex Doors India Pvt. Ltd. and admittedly, the specifications which the respondent No.3 stated along with the bid with respect to the item in question did not conform to the technical specifications provided in the tender document. The tender document required the door frames of stainless steel material Nr.1.4301, SS 304 grade only. However, respondent No.3 offered door and door frames of aluminum in place of stainless steel. The tender specification further required that the thickness of stainless steel door frame and door panel surfaces shall not be less than 1.5 mm. However, respondent No.3 offered thickness of 0.6 to 1.0 mm only. Therefore, at the time of submitting the bid, the specifications of the items to be supplied were not matching with the technical specifications provided under the tender document. It is required to be noted that the last date for submission of the bids was 30.10.2017, which was subsequently postponed by way of three corrigendum to 05.01.2018. Thus, on non-fulfilment of the technical specifications required as per the tender document, as such, the bid submitted by respondent No.3 was liable to be rejected at the technical stage itself. However, it appears that thereafter respondent No.2 entered into further negotiations/correspondences with respondent No.3 as well as the manufacturer - Metaflex Doors India Pvt. Ltd. and asked/called upon respondent No.3 as well as the manufacturer to confirm/reconfirm whether they will be able to provide the item as per the technical specifications, or not. The chronology of the dates and events and the correspondences are already referred to hereinabove while narrating the facts and therefore, the same are not repeated. The aforesaid is not permissible at all. By giving such opportunities, it appears that respondent No.3 and even the manufacturer, are given further opportunity to amend the bid which shall not be permissible after the last date of submitting the bid. The aforesaid is wholly impermissible. The aforesaid is not permissible at all. By giving such opportunities, it appears that respondent No.3 and even the manufacturer, are given further opportunity to amend the bid which shall not be permissible after the last date of submitting the bid. The aforesaid is wholly impermissible. It is required to be noted that even after further communication, after even the last date of submitting the bid, and even from the communication dated 08.03.2018, it can be seen that even till 08.03.2018, the item/product to be supplied by respondent No.3 of Metaflex Doors India Pvt. Ltd. was not tallying/matching with the technical specifications provided in the tender document. At this stage, it is required to be noted that the compliance sheet produced from the manufacturer - Metaflex Doors India Pvt. Ltd. along with the communication dated 21.02.2018, can be said to be inaccurate and/or not correct. Though in the said compliance sheet, it is stated at the bottom that “we meet all the compliances”, it is not specifically stated how they comply with all the technical qualifications. On the contrary, in the communication dated 08.03.2018 from Metaflex Doors India Pvt. Ltd., it is specifically mentioned that all the doors which they are giving are silver anodised aluminum extruded profile wall frame and not of stainless steel and even the thickness which they provide is 0.8 mm stainless steel so far as the door panel sheet thickness is concerned and not 1.5 mm, as required. For the first time, vide communication dated 22.03.2018, after giving further opportunities to respondent No.3 to meet with the required technical specifications as per the tender document, the manufacturer stated that they confirm that they fully comply with the technical specifications and that they will provide SS 304 grade Automatic Hermetic Sealing Sliding Doors with thickness of 1.5 mm. In any case, the course which is adopted by respondent No.2 in entering into further correspondences and giving further opportunity/opportunities to respondent No.3 to confirm/reconfirm the technical specifications as per the tender document would tantamount to permitting respondent No.3 to amend the bid which shall not be permissible in view of the terms and conditions of the tender document and after the submission of the bid. 8.2 Now, so far as reliance placed upon Clause-iii of Clause-(3) of General Instructions with respect to submission of documents by learned advocate appearing for respondent No.3 is concerned, at the outset, it is required to be stated that it is not the case on behalf of respondent No.2 that they invoked such powers contained in the said clause. Even otherwise, such clause shall not be applicable inasmuch as the same does not permit respondent No.2 to allow a bidder to amend its bid. It is with respect to asking for certain clarifications only. In the case of W.B.State Electricity Board v. Patel Engineering Ltd. And Others (supra), it is held and observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that negligent mistakes in the bid documents cannot be permitted to be corrected on the basis of equity. It is further held that a bidder cannot be permitted to correct its bid documents afterwards. Therefore, the correspondences by respondent No.2 after the opening of the technical bid/bids and after the last date of submitting the bid and giving further opportunities to respondent No.3 would tantamount to permitting respondent No.3 to amend the bid which is not permissible. 8.3 At this stage, it is required to be noted that respondent No.3 was as such already declared technically disqualified at the technical stage on non-fulfilling and/or not meeting with the technical specifications as per the tender document. However, on the basis of the documents/correspondences produced subsequently, a decision has been taken to consider the technical bid submitted by respondent No.3 as eligible. At this stage, it is also required to be noted that even thereafter, the financial bids of the successful bidders have been opened and the petitioner has been found to be “L-1” and it has been is called for further negotiations. At that stage, a decision has been taken by respondent No.2 to open the bid of respondent No.3 treating and/or considering respondent No.3 as technically qualified at technical stage, which is not permissible. 9. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the petition succeeds. The impugned decision of respondent No.2 to treat and/or consider respondent No.3 as technically qualified at technical stage for the item in question is hereby quashed and set aside. Now respondent No.2 to proceed further with the tender proceedings and complete the same at the earliest. Rule is made absolute accordingly. The impugned decision of respondent No.2 to treat and/or consider respondent No.3 as technically qualified at technical stage for the item in question is hereby quashed and set aside. Now respondent No.2 to proceed further with the tender proceedings and complete the same at the earliest. Rule is made absolute accordingly. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. ORDER At this stage and after the order was pronounced, Shri Ravi Karnavat, learned advocate appearing for respondent No.3 has requested to stay the present judgment and order. The prayer is opposed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 has stated earlier that there is a great urgently and as the items are required urgently in the Cancer Hospital and because of the proceedings there is already a delay. Under the circumstances, the request is rejected.