ORDER : N. Nagaresh, J. 1. The petitioner, a Contractor Firm holding A Class registration with the State PWD, seeks to declare that the rejection of the technical bid of the petitioner for the work KHFB PROJECT 17-18 - Improvements to Pathanapuram- Eanath Road, is illegal and the tender is liable to be accepted and considered along with other tenders. 2. The petitioner states that the petitioner has undertook several works of construction and maintenance of National Highways, State Highways and other major roads and public buildings, during the past 35 years. Respondents 1 and 2 invited bids for the work of KHFB PROJECT 17-18 - Improvements to Pathanapuram-Eanath Road. The petitioner submitted their bid. The rate offered by the petitioner was lesser by Rs. 80.56 lakhs than the declared L1 bid. The petitioner could not get the work due to the wrong rejection of the technical bid made by the petitioner. 3. There were seven participants in the tender and the bids of five tenders were rejected and only two bids were accepted. The financial bid of the 5 respondent was also recorded as rejected. However, in the financial evaluation bid list, besides the two flawless tenders, the bid of the 5 respondent was recorded as accepted and ranked at L3. 4. The petitioner contends that the rejection of his technical bid was on the alleged premises of defective Bankers certificate submitted by the petitioner. This rejection is illegal. Furthermore, acceptance of the bid of the 5th respondent, in spite of the rejection of their technical bid, is grossly arbitrary and discriminatory. Therefore, respondents 1 and 2 are liable to be compelled to accept the bid of the petitioner by appropriate orders of this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the general condition 2.6 of the tender only required that bidder shall submit his banks certificate specifically showing access to lines of credit and valid proofs showing availability of other financial resources, to meet the requirement. Ext. P4 Bankers Certificate submitted by the petitioner evidenced that the petitioner is enjoying the cash credit facility of Rs. 2,800 lakhs and is also enjoying Bank Guarantee limit of Rs. 2500 lakhs. The said cash credit facility and Bank Guarantee limit amply satisfied the requirements of the respondents. Therefore, the petitioner is evidently wronged by the rejection of the bid. 6. 2,800 lakhs and is also enjoying Bank Guarantee limit of Rs. 2500 lakhs. The said cash credit facility and Bank Guarantee limit amply satisfied the requirements of the respondents. Therefore, the petitioner is evidently wronged by the rejection of the bid. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner also pointed out that the bid of the 5th respondent was also rejected initially. But, subsequently, in the final evaluation bid summary, he was ranked as L3. Apart from the illegality of such subsequent inclusion, learned counsel pointed out that had respondents 1 and 2 accepted the bid of the petitioner, the State would be gaining an amount of Rs. 80.56 lakhs, since the bid of the petitioner is lower by that much amount. 7. The learned Government Pleader opposed the writ petition. The learned Government Pleader submitted that Ext. P3 Certificate submitted by the petitioner in support of his financial status was insufficient. Though the petitioner submitted Bankers Certificate, the said Certificate did not show that the credit facility is provided for the tendered work. The petitioner is having other works also to his credit. There is no guarantee that the credit limit shown in Ext. P3 Bankers Certificate would be available to the petitioner to undertake the work tendered now. 8. As regards inclusion of the 5th respondent, the learned Government Pleader pointed out that the tendering, publication and opening are done in e-tender Web Portal managed by NIC. The tendering authority can only accept or reject the technical bids. After the financial bids of the technically qualified bidders are opened, the tender summary reports in the e-tendering site is such that the financial bids of lowest bidders other than L-1 and L-2 would be shown as rejected. However, this is exclusively for the purpose of releasing the performance guarantee. The Government Pleader also pointed out that after the award of contract, even the bid of L2 bidder will be displayed as rejected. The writ petition is therefore devoid of merits, contended the learned Government Pleader. 9. The 3rd respondent resisted the writ petition filing counter- affidavit. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent submitted that the Bankers Certificate produced by the petitioner should have been one sufficient to enable the employer to reach to a conclusion that the bidder is possessing adequate working capital for undertaking the work he is bidding. 9. The 3rd respondent resisted the writ petition filing counter- affidavit. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent submitted that the Bankers Certificate produced by the petitioner should have been one sufficient to enable the employer to reach to a conclusion that the bidder is possessing adequate working capital for undertaking the work he is bidding. The petitioner's certificate was lacking credibility in this regard. The learned counsel urged that there is absolutely no arbitrariness or hostile discrimination in the award of tender. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 3 and the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent. 11. The General Condition 2.6 of the tender, dealing with the Bankers Certificate, is as under:- "The Bidder should possess adequate working capital of more than 10% of the probable estimated cost of the work for which he is bidding. For this the Bidder shall submit his Bank's certificate specifically showing access to lines of credit and valid proofs showing availability of other financial resources to meet the requirement. Bank's certificate does not showing the amount of credit limit sanctioned to the Bidder is liable to rejected and the Bidder will be disqualified without notice. In case of bank certificates showing sanctioned credit limit and utilized credit limit, the Employer shall take the balance available credit limit only for evaluation purpose. "A close reading of the said condition would show that it is not sufficient that the Banker certifies access to lines of credit and availability of other financial resources, such certificate should also show that the bidder possess adequate working capital of more than 10% of the probable estimated cost of the work "for which he is bidding". Ext. P3 Bankers Certificate would not disclose that the credit facilities of the Banker would be available to the present work. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that Ext. P3 certificate satisfies the requirement of condition No. 2.6 of the tender. Respondents 1 and 2 have produced Exts. R1(c) and R1(d) Bankers Certificates submitted by the petitioner themselves for other tendered works. Those certificates issued by the same banker of the petitioner indicated that the facilities will be available to the works mentioned therein. 13. P3 certificate satisfies the requirement of condition No. 2.6 of the tender. Respondents 1 and 2 have produced Exts. R1(c) and R1(d) Bankers Certificates submitted by the petitioner themselves for other tendered works. Those certificates issued by the same banker of the petitioner indicated that the facilities will be available to the works mentioned therein. 13. Therefore, it is evident that the petitioner was quite aware of the nature of the Banks Certificates required for submission of tenders to respondents 1 and 2. Ext. P4 certificate submitted by the petitioner, without showing availability of credit facilities to the work in question was therefore rightly rejected by the respondents. 14. In the facts of the case, this Court finds that there is no illegality or irregularity on the part of respondents 1 and 2 in rejecting the technical bid of the petitioner. The writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed.