JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner a contractor, seeking to quash Ext.P5 communication dated 16.11.2018, rejecting the technical bid submitted by the petitioner for not having experience in similar projects as per the project requirement (published scope of work) and not submitting the affidavit in accordance with the requirement contained under Ext.P3 tender document, and for other related reliefs. Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: 2. Petitioner is an A-class Government contractor and when the respondents called for e-tenders from qualified contractors for doing civil contracts like site clearing, fencing and earth development work for 2 MW Solar Power Plant project at NAD, Aluva, Ernakulam, petitioner submitted his bid along with other documents. According to the petitioner, even though petitioner is fully qualified to undertake and carry out the project given by the respondents, they have issued Ext.P5, whereby the bid submitted by the petitioner is rejected, and others are selected, for extraneous reasons. The additional 3rd respondent is the successful bidder in the contract in question. 3. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a detailed statement, refuting the claims and demands raised by the petitioner. Among other contentions, it is stated that, it is clearly specified in Clause (7) that tender should be submitted only through online mode at the above site, and no manual submission of the tender will be entertained. It is also pointed out that, queries in the said regard are sought to be cleared through the contact mobile number, and therefore, the averments contained in the writ petition contrary to the same are not true or correct. To put it short, the case projected by respondents 1 and 2 is that, petitioner failed to submit the notarized affidavit along with the bid documents, as is required under Clause 2.1.4 of instructions to bidders. It is also pointed out that, petitioner is not having sufficient experience in accordance with the qualifications prescribed in the notification. 4. It is also stated that, as per the e-tender floated, eligibility regarding PWD licence is not limited to 'A' class and it is given clearly in the tender document as any class, i.e., 'A', 'B', 'C' and 'D', which was intended to get maximum participation and bids. 4. It is also stated that, as per the e-tender floated, eligibility regarding PWD licence is not limited to 'A' class and it is given clearly in the tender document as any class, i.e., 'A', 'B', 'C' and 'D', which was intended to get maximum participation and bids. Apart from the same, 1st respondent is not following PWD norms in the contract in question, and therefore, Ext.P6 stipulations issued by the PWD Department are not binding on the 1st respondent. As per e-procurement practice, whatever documents submitted through online as “Technical bid” only will be considered for evaluation and hard-copies by post are not accepted. The 1st respondent received six bids and three bids were rejected during technical evaluation including the bid of the petitioner. As per Clause 2.1.4 under Eligibility criteria, the bidder should have no civil and criminal cases against the company or proprietor of the firm, and a notiarized affidavit to the said effect is to be submitted along with the tender documents. However, petitioner had not submitted the affidavit. 5. Further, as per Clause 6.2.6, the bidder should have experience in similar work and proof of successful execution of similar supplies/work executed should be submitted. The experience submitted by the petitioner is not in accordance with the requirement of the 1st respondent. So much so, defence fencing is a special type work which includes chain link fencing, barbed wire fencing and concertina coil on top. Sufficient time has been given after floating the tender on 29.10.2018 for site study. Other opportunities were also made to visit the site and do the necessary before submitting the bid in terms of the notice inviting tender. Therefore, according to respondents 1 and 2, the rejection of the technical bid submitted by the petitioner is made, since the same has not met up with the requirements contained under the Notice Inviting Tender. 6. A reply affidavit is filed by the petitioner, reiterating the stand adopted in the writ petition and also producing certain documents to show that the successful bidder, i.e., the additional 3rd respondent is not a contractor having licence for the past two years in accordance with the requirement contained under clause 2.1.6. 7. 6. A reply affidavit is filed by the petitioner, reiterating the stand adopted in the writ petition and also producing certain documents to show that the successful bidder, i.e., the additional 3rd respondent is not a contractor having licence for the past two years in accordance with the requirement contained under clause 2.1.6. 7. The additional 3rd respondent has also filed a counter affidavit, refuting the allegations made by the petitioner in the reply affidavit, and also stating that, on account of the project awarded to the 3rd respondent, the work was started by the 3rd respondent and it is almost complete. It is also submitted that, after acceptance of the tender, negotiations were done and the 3rd respondent had provided an overall discount of Rs.32,600/- in the final negotiations. Other aspects are also put forth in similar lines with the statement filed by respondents 1 and 2. 8. I have heard Sri. Pramod J. Dev., learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. M.A. Zohra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2, and Smt. K.K. Raziya, learned counsel appearing for the additional 3rd respondent, and perused the pleadings and the documents on record. 9. The subject issue revolves around a single question as to whether any manner of interference is warranted to Ext.P5 decision taken by respondents 1 and 2, dis-qualifying the petitioner in the technical bid. The technical bid of the petitioner was rejected on two grounds: i.e., (1) petitioner has not submitted an affidavit as is contemplated in Clause 2.1.4 under the Eligibility criteria in Ext.P3 tender document, which read thus: “Bidder should have no civil and criminal cases against the company or proprietor of the firm. An affidavit to be attached on this”. It is also an admitted fact that, petitioner has not submitted any affidavit in contemplation of the said requirement under the tender document. Case of the petitioner is that, a letter was given in accordance with the said requirement, evident from Ext.P4(15). An affidavit to be attached on this”. It is also an admitted fact that, petitioner has not submitted any affidavit in contemplation of the said requirement under the tender document. Case of the petitioner is that, a letter was given in accordance with the said requirement, evident from Ext.P4(15). However, it is clear from the said document dated 05.11.2018 that it is just a letter addressed in the letter head of the petitioner to the Assistant Manager, Purchase, of the 1st respondent organization, and it reads: “AFFIDAVIT I declare that I have not been banned or de-listed by any Government or quasi Government or Public Sector Undertakings till date and there are no criminal cases against me.” Thereafter the signature and seal of the petitioner are affixed. 10. Therefore, the prime question is, whether such a letter can be treated as an affidavit at all. First of all, an affidavit has to be submitted in accordance with article 4 of the Schedule of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959, in Twenty five rupees stamp paper. Exemptions are provided there under, which are as follows: “(a) as a condition of enrolment under the Air Force Act, 1950 (Central Act 45 of 1950) or the Army Act, 1950 (Central Act 46 of 1950) or the Navy Act, 1957 (Central Act 62 of 1957); or (b) for the immediate purpose of being filed or used in any Court or before the officer of any Court; or (c) for the sole purpose of enabling any person to receive any pension or charitable allowance.” Therefore, it is clear that the case of the petitioner will not come under any of the exempted category. That apart, affidavit is not defined under the Stamp Act, 1959. However, the 'form of affidavit' is prescribed under Rule 43 of the Civil Rules of Practice, which read thus: “43. Form of affidavit.-Every affidavit shall be drawn up in the first person and be divided into paragraphs numbered consecutively; and each paragraph as nearly as may be shall be confined to a distinct portion of the subject-matter.” Rule 44 deals with contents of affidavit, which read thus: “Every affidavit shall state the full name, age, description and place of abode of the deponent, and shall be signed or marked by him. Where the affidavit covers more than one page, the deponent shall sign every page. Where the affidavit covers more than one page, the deponent shall sign every page. The description shall include the father's or karanavan's or husband's or mother's name and such other particulars as may be necessary to identify the person.” 11. Rule 46 deals with persons authenticating affidavits, which read thus: “Affidavits may be sworn or affirmed before any judicial officer, a District Registrar or Sub Registrar, the chief ministerial officer of any Civil or Criminal Court in the State of Kerala, a member of Parliament or of the Legislature of any State in India, the Chairman or Executive Authority or a member of any Municipal Council, Corporation or other local authority in India, a Gazetted Officer in the service of the Central Government or the Government of any State in India, a commissioned officer in the Defence Forces of India, or a pleader.” Rule 47 deals with mode of authentication, which reads as follows: “The person before whom an affidavit is sworn or affirmed shall state the date on which, and the place where the same is made, and sign under his name and designation at the end as in Form No.14”. These are the basic requirements of filing an affidavit. Therefore, on a reading of Ext.P4(15), it is quite clear and evident that petitioner has not submitted any affidavit in contemplation of law. Therefore, the requirements contained under the aforesaid provisions have not been complied with by the petitioner. 12. The next dis-qualification found out by the tender authority is under Clause 2.1.6 of Ext.P3 bid, which read thus: “2.1.6 Bidder should be a civil contractor having PWD licence of any class who is engaged in similar works at least for the past 2 years. Proof of valid licence to be attached.” It is also an admitted fact that, the notarized certificate and other documents produced by the petitioner would show that petitioner has not undertaken any similar work in contemplation of the said provision. However, the case projected by the petitioner is that, the 3rd respondent who is the successful bidder is not having a valid licence for the past two years, evident from Ext.P7, which is dated 01.09.2018. However, it is clear from the aforesaid clause that it insists only a valid licence to be attached along with the tender documents submitted. However, the case projected by the petitioner is that, the 3rd respondent who is the successful bidder is not having a valid licence for the past two years, evident from Ext.P7, which is dated 01.09.2018. However, it is clear from the aforesaid clause that it insists only a valid licence to be attached along with the tender documents submitted. The question of two years therein is only with respect to the experience of similar work of the contractor during the past two years. These are exactly the contentions put forth by the respondents against the submissions made by the petitioner in the writ petition. 13. Having evaluated the aforesaid situations, I am of the considered opinion that, petitioner has not made out any case justifying interference of this Court, exercising the power of discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, the conditions contained under Ext.P3 are not suffering from any dis-qualification, since it is for the tender inviting authority to decide the nature of experience and qualification required to a successful bidder, in order to carry out the work. There are no reasons remaining in Ext.P3 to interfere with the terms and conditions contained there under also. A writ court considering an issue with respect to a contract need look into whether there is any illegality, arbitrariness or any other legal infirmities warranting interference in the conditions incorporated by the Tender Inviting Authority. On an evaluation of the entire circumstances, I do not find any such legal circumstances in order to interfere with the tender documents issued by the 1st respondent. The writ petition fails, accordingly it is dismissed.