ORDER : The petitioner seeks a mandamus declaring the action of 3rd respondent, who is the Executive Officer of Sri Varasiddhi Vinayaka Swami Vari Devasthanam, Kanipakam, in awarding tender to the 4th respondent pursuant to tender notification No.3632/S/2019, dated 03.02.2020 is illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and for consequential order. 2. Notification No.3632/S/2019, dated 03.02.2020 was issued by 3rd the respondent inviting tenders for providing housekeeping, mechanized sanitation, sweeping and service to Sri Varasiddi Vinayaka Swami Vari Devasthanam, Kanipakam from 01.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 through e-procurement platform. Earlier, similar notification was issued for the period from 01.01.2020 to 31.12.2021 and in response thereof, the petitioner, the 4th respondent herein and three others submitted their bids. However, the 3rd respondent cancelled the said notification and issued the present notification. At the present instance, the petitioner and 4th respondent alone submitted their bids which were evaluated in two phases i.e., technical bid evaluation and financial bid evaluation and thereafter, the 3rd respondent declared that the petitioner did not qualify in the technical bid and ultimately confirmed the tender in favour of the 4th respondent, who remained as lone contestant. Hence the writ petition. 3. The petitioner’s case is that following the terms and conditions of the tender notification, the petitioner along with requisite EMD, has uploaded all the relevant documents on 15.02.2020. The pre-qualification/technical bid opening date was 17.02.2020 at 3.00 P.M. as per the notification. While so, on 29.02.2020 at 5.12 P.M., the petitioner received an e-mail that the evaluation of pre-qualification and technical stage was completed and in order to know the status the petitioner can view e-procurement portal. On enquiry through the e-procurement website, the petitioner was astonished to find that the tender was awarded to the 4th respondent on 29.02.2020 at 5.25 P.M. Thus, the grievance of the petitioner is that the technical bids submitted by the tenderers were opened on 17.02.2020 at 3.00 P.M. and their evaluation regarding technical qualification was made on 29.02.2020 at 5.12 P.M. and immediately within few minutes thereafter financial bid was opened and confirmed in favour of 4th respondent. In the process, the petitioner was not informed as to why its technical bid was rejected though it fulfilled all the conditions stipulated in the notification and submitted its bid. In the process, the petitioner was not informed as to why its technical bid was rejected though it fulfilled all the conditions stipulated in the notification and submitted its bid. By not letting the petitioner know the reasons for discarding its bid, the 3rd respondent violated clause 5.1 of the tender notification which inter alia states that in case of any discrepancy or non-adherence of the conditions, the tender accepting authority shall communicate the same which will be binding both on the tender opening authority and the tenderer. (a) The further grievance of the petitioner is that no reasons were assigned for awarding contract to 4th respondent and on what basis the 4th respondent was chosen over the petitioner. If only one tenderer is left without competition, the authority cannot finalize the tender. Thus, all the acts of the 3rd respondent are highly doubtful and they were intended to somehow finalize the tender in favour of the 4th respondent. 4. The 3rd respondent filed counter opposing the writ petition inter alia contending thus: (a) The technical evaluation will be made purely on the basis of supporting documents uploaded/furnished by the bidders and the EMD amount paid with reference to the eligibility prescribed. Upon failure to meet the relevant eligibility criteria, the bid will be disqualified. In the tender notification itself it was categorically stated that Last date and time for receipt of bids: 17.02.2020 at 2.00 P.M. Pre-qualification/Technical bid opening date: 17.02.2020 at 3.00 P.M. Accordingly, on 17.02.2020 at 3.00 P.M. the 3rd respondent authorities downloaded the documents uploaded by the bidders and scrutinized the same and on 29.02.2020, the technical qualification evaluation was done by verifying all parameters and other qualifications prescribed in the tender notification and found that the petitioner has not fulfilled requisite technical qualifications/not complied the conditions laid down in the notification to qualify itself to participate in the price bid. The petitioner has not fulfilled the following conditions laid down in the tender notification: (i) Demand draft of Rs.15.00 lakhs and Demand Draft for Rs.8,000/-which were enclosed were not self attested by the petitioner which is a mandatory condition as per Serial No.7 of the tender document details. (ii) The petitioner has not enclosed two years experience certificate with reference to work carried out in house keeping, mechanized sanitation, sweeping services activities in Rest house/Guest house/Hostel/Hotel/Hospital/Government schools/Public sector/Major temples/any six reputed organizations/institutions in India. (ii) The petitioner has not enclosed two years experience certificate with reference to work carried out in house keeping, mechanized sanitation, sweeping services activities in Rest house/Guest house/Hostel/Hotel/Hospital/Government schools/Public sector/Major temples/any six reputed organizations/institutions in India. The preference will be given to the firms who have executed similar works in major temples as per clause 2.1.1 (a) of the NIT. (iii) The petitioner has not enclosed the document showing that they have undertaken atleast 150 rooms or 15,000 square metres area either in any one of the Rest house/Guest house/Hostel/Hotel/Hospital/Schools or combination, but not more than two locations, premises as per clause 2.1.1(b) of NIT. (iv) The petitioner has not enclosed the documents as per Serial No.6 of requisite tender documents and qualification criteria 2.3.5 of NIT i.e., to enclose attested copies of experience certificate issued by the agreement concluding authority towards proof of experience criteria prescribed. In addition, copies of work orders and agreements are to be enclosed to support the same which are mandatory in nature. (v) The petitioner has not enclosed the relevant work experience certificate which shall be issued only by the competent authorities i.e., not less than the agreement concluding authority (copy of agreement shall be enclosed) as per clause 2.4 (d) of the requisite document criteria of NIT and Sl.No.11 of requisite tender documents which are mandatory. (b) The petitioner has enclosed the documents i.e., Agreement and experience certificates which are not in the relevant field as per the tender notification. Those agreements and service certificates are pertaining to the cleaning of shop rooms belonging to market yards of Mysore Mahanagara Palike, Karnataka State. (c) When the petitioner disqualified in the technical bid evaluation, the same was communicated through online to the petitioner as per clause 5.1 of NIT and as per clause 5.2, after completion of technical bid evaluation, the price bid would be opened and allotted to the lowest tenderer. Since the 4th respondent alone got qualified in the technical bid, it was automatically qualified in the price bid also as the lone contestant. The 4th respondent has fulfilled all the conditions laid down in the tender notification so far as technical bid is concerned and as such finally he was qualified in the price bid also. Therefore, clause 5.1 and 5.2 were strictly followed while finalizing the tenders. The 4th respondent has fulfilled all the conditions laid down in the tender notification so far as technical bid is concerned and as such finally he was qualified in the price bid also. Therefore, clause 5.1 and 5.2 were strictly followed while finalizing the tenders. (d) Refuting the allegations that the petitioner was not communicated before disqualifying him, it is contended that when the petitioner was disqualified in technical bid, the 3rd respondent authorities communicated the same through online which is visible to all the participants. The petitioner was communicated through online process on which ground it was disqualified. So far as the allegation that no reason was assigned for awarding contract to 4th respondent is concerned, it is contended that as per clause 5.3 of NIT, the said aspect is confidential and hence, not disclosed. So far as the allegation of not granting opportunity to the petitioner prior to the opening of the price bid is concerned, it is contended, as per tender notification no such clause was inserted to give an opportunity to the petitioner to comply the leftover conditions which were not complied while uploading the tender documents. (e) Regarding the averment of the petitioner that when lone contestant remained at the financial bid, fresh tender should be called for, it is contended that there is no such prohibition to award contract to the lone contestant who fulfilled the conditions. Finally it is contended that the respondent authorities have not shown any favouritism towards 4th respondent as alleged and prayed to dismiss the writ petition. (f) The 3rd respondent filed additional counter wherein it is stated that the 4th respondent has quoted Rs.18,09,900/-per month as its price bid. It is further stated that it is not possible to open the price bid of a disqualified person because once an agency is disqualified in the technical bid, its price bid will be automatically locked and it will not be possible to open in the e-procurement platform and therefore, it is not possible to compare the respective price bids of a disqualified agency and qualified agency. Therefore, the 3rd respondent is unaware of the price bid of the petitioner. 5. The petitioner filed rejoinder to the counter of 3rd respondent. The petitioner contended that since he uploaded two DDs along with covering letters duly attested, he shall be deemed to have complied with the condition. Therefore, the 3rd respondent is unaware of the price bid of the petitioner. 5. The petitioner filed rejoinder to the counter of 3rd respondent. The petitioner contended that since he uploaded two DDs along with covering letters duly attested, he shall be deemed to have complied with the condition. Similarly, with regard to the experience in the relevant filed, the petitioner contended that the experience certificate produced by the petitioner is a combination of shops and also the corporation guest houses and bungalows which squarely fits under sub-clause ‘b’ of clause 2.1.1 of experience criteria. The petitioner has also submitted relevant house keeping experience relating to Prasanth Muliti Speciality Hospital, Bangalore in relation to sanitation and maintenance works for 75000 square feet which included 75 rooms till date. The petitioner has also undertaken the works relating to maintenance of cleanliness and sanitation work at Unit-III, Sapthagiri Satralu (7 blocks) at TTD, Tirumala from 2003 to 2005 and said certificate was also annexed. Hence, it is preposterous to say that the petitioner has not obtained experience certificate from the competent authorities. It is also contended that the 3rd respondent has not communicated on which ground the petitioner was disqualified except making a one word online intimation as “rejected”. Thus, the rd respondent had acted irrationally, arbitrarily and with bias attitude to favour the 4th respondent. Had the 3rd respondent accepted the technical bid of the petitioner, he would have got the contract as his financial bid was the lower between the two. 6. The 4th respondent did not file any counter. 7. Heard arguments of learned counsel for petitioner Sri Ambati Sreekanth Reddy, and learned Government Pleader for Endowments representing the respondents 1 & 2, and Sri G.Ramana Rao, learned Standing Counsel for 3rd respondent, and Sri D.V.Sasidhar, learned counsel for 4th respondent. 8. The point for consideration is whether the 3rd respondent has arbitrarily and illegally rejected the technical bid of the petitioner to favour the 4th respondent and if so, judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be made by this Court to test whether due process is followed by 3rd respondent in awarding the contract? 9. Point: As can be seen from the counter affidavit, the technical bid of the petitioner was rejected in view of certain defects enlisted in the counter. 9. Point: As can be seen from the counter affidavit, the technical bid of the petitioner was rejected in view of certain defects enlisted in the counter. While learned counsel for petitioner would argue that the defects pointed out by the respondent No.3 were not at all the defects in terms of the tender notification, in oppugnation, learned Standing Counsel for 3rd respondent would argue that the conditions mentioned in the notification are mandatory and if any tenderer failed to meet those conditions, his technical bid is liable to be rejected and since the petitioner failed to meet some of the conditions as mentioned in the counter, its technical bid was duly rejected and therefore, its price bid was not opened for consideration. 10. The 3rd respondent temple being governed as per the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987 (for short, ‘the Endowments Act’) and it being administered by the Executive Officer appointed by the Endowments Department of the A.P. State Government, it comes within the broader definition of State envisaged under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the contracts, grants, licenses and permits etc. issued by the 3rd respondent are amenable to judicial review. The scope and extent of judicial review on the administrative acts of the State and its instrumentalities is no more res integra. (i) In Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy, Represented by its Partner Kasturi Lal, Jammu v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, AIR 1980 SC 1992 = MANU/SC/0079/1980 dealing with the scope of judicial review, the Apex Court observed that with the growth of Welfare State the new forms of property in the shape of Government largesse are developing and the Government dispensing large number of benefits including jobs, contracts, licenses, quotas, mineral rights etc. The Government cannot give largesse in its arbitrary discretion or as its sweet will, but there are two limitations imposed by law to such discretion. The first one is regarding the terms on which the largesse may be granted and the second one is the persons who may be the recipients of such largesse. In the realm of the first limitation, reasonableness and public interest will be the guiding factors. So far as the second limitation is concerned, the Government is not free like an individual in selecting the recipients for its largesse as it pleases. In the realm of the first limitation, reasonableness and public interest will be the guiding factors. So far as the second limitation is concerned, the Government is not free like an individual in selecting the recipients for its largesse as it pleases. It must do so fairly without discrimination and without unfair procedure. Its action must not be arbitrary or capricious, irrational or irrelevant, but based on some principles which meets the test of reason and relevance which is the corner stone of administrative law and also validated by the Doctrine of equality embodied in Article 14. The Government cannot arbitrarily choose a person by discriminating others. (ii) In Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Escorts Limited, MANU/SC/0015/1985, the Supreme Court observed that if the action of State is related to contractual obligations or obligations arising out of the tort, the Court may not ordinarily examine it unless the action has some public law character attached to it. The distinction between public law character and private law field depends upon the host of facts such as the activity in which the State or instrumentality of the State is engaged in performing the action and other relevant circumstances which are discernible in a given case. (iii) In Food Corporation of India v. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries, AIR 1993 SC 1601 = MANU/SC/0257/1993, the Apex Court observed that in contractual sphere, the State and all its instrumentalities have to conform to Article 14 of the Constitution, of which non-arbitrariness is a significant facet. There is no unfettered discretion in public law. A public authority possesses powers only to use them for public good. This impose the duty to act fairly and to adopt a procedure which is fair play in action. Due observation of this obligation as a part of good administration, raises a reasonable or legitimate expectation in every citizen to be treated fairly in his interaction with the State and its instrumentalities. This impose the duty to act fairly and to adopt a procedure which is fair play in action. Due observation of this obligation as a part of good administration, raises a reasonable or legitimate expectation in every citizen to be treated fairly in his interaction with the State and its instrumentalities. (iv) In Sterling Computers Limited v. M & N Publications Limited, AIR 1996 SC 51 = MANU/SC/0439/1993, it was observed that the procedure adopted by the authorities which can be held to be State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, while awarding the contracts in respect of properties belonging to the State can be tested in the light of Article 14 of the Constitution is the settled law by the various judgments of the Supreme Court. It was further held that there was nothing paradoxical in imposing legal limits on the authorities by Courts even in contractual matters because the whole conception of unfettered discretion is inappropriate to a public authority who is expected to act for public good. It was also observed that by way of judicial review the Court is not expected to act as a Court of appeal while examining an administrative decision and to record a finding whether such decision would have been taken otherwise in the facts and circumstances of the case. (v) In Tata Cellular v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 11 = MANU/SC/0002/1996 the Apex Court considering its earlier decisions deduced the following principles: “The principles deducible from the above are: (1) The modern trend points to judicial restraint in administrative action. (2) The Court does no sit as a court of appeal but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made. (3) The Court does not have the expertise to correct the administrative decision. If a review of the administrative decision is permitted it will be substituting its own decision, without the necessary expertise which itself may be fallible. (4) The terms of the invitation to tender cannot be open to judicial scrutiny because the invitation to tender is in the realm of contract. (5) The Government must have freedom of contract. In other words, a fairplay in the joints is a necessary concomitant for an administrative body functioning in an administrative sphere or quasi-administrative sphere. (4) The terms of the invitation to tender cannot be open to judicial scrutiny because the invitation to tender is in the realm of contract. (5) The Government must have freedom of contract. In other words, a fairplay in the joints is a necessary concomitant for an administrative body functioning in an administrative sphere or quasi-administrative sphere. However, the decision must not only be tested buy the application of Wednesbury principle of reasonableness (including its other facts pointed out above) but must be free arbitrariness not affected by bias or actuated by mala fides. (6) Quashing decisions may impose heavy administrative burden on the administration and lead to increased and unbudgeted expenditure.” (vi) In ABL International Limited v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Limited, (2004) 3 SCC 553 = MANU/SC/1080/2003, the Apex Court on review of several decisions gave the following legal principles on the maintainability of writ petition in government contractual matters. “29. From the above discussion of ours, following legal principles emerge as to the maintainability of a writ petition:- (a) In an appropriate case, a writ petition as against a State or an instrumentality of a State arising out of a contractual obligation is maintainable. (b) Merely because some disputed questions of facts arise for consideration, same cannot be a ground to refuse to entertain a writ petition in all cases as a matter of rule. (c) A writ petition involving a consequential relief of monetary claim is also maintainable.” (vii) In Jasmshed Hormusji Wadia v. Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai, (2004) 3 SCC 214 = MANU/SC/0033/2004, the Apex Court observed thus: “16. The position of law is settled that the State and its authorities including instrumentalities of States have to be just, fair and reasonable in all their activities including those in the field of contracts. The position of law is settled that the State and its authorities including instrumentalities of States have to be just, fair and reasonable in all their activities including those in the field of contracts. Even while playing the role of a landlord or a tenant, the State and its authorities remain so and cannot be heard or seen causing displeasure or discomfort to Article 14 of the Constitution of India.” (viii) In Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa, 2006 (14) SCALE 224 = MANU/SC/0090/2007, the Apex Court while observing that judicial review of administrative action is intended to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, bias and malafides and its purpose is to check whether the choice or decision is made lawfully and not to check whether the choice or decision is sound, has ultimately held thus: “Therefore, a court before interfering in tender or contractual matters in exercise of power of judicial review, should pose to itself the following questions: (i) Whether the process adopted or decision made by the authority is mala fide or intended to favour someone. OR Whether the process adopted or decision made is so arbitrary and irrational that the court can say: ‘the decision is such that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could have reached.’ (ii) Whether public interest is affected. If the answers are in the negative, there should be no interference under Article 226.” (ix) In Michigan Rubber (India) Limited v. The State of Karnataka, AIR 2012 SC 2915 = MANU/SC/0662/2012 the Apex Court has deduced principle similar to those set out in Tata Cellular’s case (supra) and held that if the State or its instrumentalities act reasonably, fairly and in public interest in awarding contract, interference by the Courts is very restrictive since no person can claim fundamental right to carry on business with the Government. However, if the process adopted or decision made by the authorities is mala fide or intended to favour someone or arbitrary and irrational that the decision taken by it could not have been taken by a reasonable authority acting reasonably and with relevant law, the interference will be inevitable. (x) In Afcons Infrastructure Limited v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Limited, (2016) 16 SCC 818 = MANU/SC/1003/2016, the Apex Court has expounded that the decision making process in accepting or rejecting the bid should not be interfered with. (x) In Afcons Infrastructure Limited v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Limited, (2016) 16 SCC 818 = MANU/SC/1003/2016, the Apex Court has expounded that the decision making process in accepting or rejecting the bid should not be interfered with. Interference is permissible only if the decision making process is arbitrary or irrational or perverse to an extent that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with law could have reached such a decision. It was also cautioned that the Constitutional Courts are expected to exercise restraint in interfering with the administrative decisions and ought not to substitute their view for that of administrative authority. With regard to interpretation of the tender documents also, the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered valuable opinion. It observed that the owner or the employer of the project having authorized the tender documents, is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirement and interpret its documents. The Constitutional Court generally must defer to this understanding and appreciation of tender documents unless there is a mala fide or perversity in the understanding or appreciation or in the application of the terms of the tender conditions. It is possible that the employer of a project may give an interpretation to the documents which is not acceptable to the constitutional Courts but that by itself is not a reason for interfering with the interpretation given. 11. From the above jurimetrical jurisprudence, the following points will emerge: (i) The judicial review on State administrative activities is limited inasmuch as the Constitutional Courts do not sit on appeal as to whether the decision is good and sound or not, but only probe into whether due procedure is followed i.e., whether the acts of authorities are just, fair and reasonable in the matter of allocating contracts. (ii) If the process adopted or decision made by the authorities is malafide, arbitrary, intended to favour a particular person or section or the decision is so irrational or perverse which no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with a relevant law could have reached, the High Court can use the plenary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to set right the things to the required extent. On the above touchstone, the case on hand is to be examined. 12. Admittedly, the petitioner and 4th respondent alone submitted tenders to the subject notification and ultimately the petitioner’s tender was rejected in the technical evaluation. On the above touchstone, the case on hand is to be examined. 12. Admittedly, the petitioner and 4th respondent alone submitted tenders to the subject notification and ultimately the petitioner’s tender was rejected in the technical evaluation. The respondent enlisted different causes for such rejection. (a) The first cause is that a tenderer has to send Rs.15.00 lakhs towards EMD/bid security in the shape of DD and Rs.8,000/-towards process fee by way of DD and the tenderer is required to self attest all the uploaded documents. According to 3rd respondent, the petitioner though uploaded the drafts, but he did not make self attestation. The petitioner’s case in his reply affidavit is that since he uploaded covering letters along with DDs, he did not specifically make self-attestation on the DDs and that cannot be treated as a defect on its part. To that effect the petitioner filed exhibits P42 and P43 along with material papers, which are the copies of two DDs for Rs.15.00 lakhs and Rs.8,000/-and their corresponding covering letters addressed by the petitioner in favour of 3rd respondent. In this regard, a perusal of Ex.P1 tender document book shows it contains several particulars and conditions relating to the tender. So far as EMD for Rs.15.00 lakhs is concerned, the same is mentioned under the heading ‘General terms and conditions’. Condition No.2 reads thus: “2. EMD for Rs.15,00,000/-(Rupees Fifteen lakhs only) to be paid in the form of crossed Demand Draft obtained from any National Banks drawn in favour of The Executive Officer, Sri Varasiddi Vinayaka Swamy Vari Devasthanam, Kanipakam. (Date of D.D. shall be on or after 03.02.2020 (The EMD value shall be only in the shape of DD and uploaded accordingly in the place meant for DD).” (b) Similarly under the heading ‘Earnest Money Deposit’ it is mentioned thus: 4. Tenderers shall have to enclose the scanned copy of EMD for Rs.15,00,000/-(Rupees Fifteen lakhs only) by way of Demand Draft obtained from any National Bank drawn in favour of EXECUTIVE OFFICER, Sri Varasiddi Vinayaka Swamy Vari Devasthanam, Kanipakam payable at Kanipakam along with the tender. Tenderers shall have to enclose the scanned copy of EMD for Rs.15,00,000/-(Rupees Fifteen lakhs only) by way of Demand Draft obtained from any National Bank drawn in favour of EXECUTIVE OFFICER, Sri Varasiddi Vinayaka Swamy Vari Devasthanam, Kanipakam payable at Kanipakam along with the tender. The Demand Draft towards EMD can be initially valid for 3 months and the same shall be extended up to tender validity period as and when required by SVVS Devasthanam.” (c) As can be seen, in the above clauses there was no stipulation that the scanned copy of DD shall contain the self-attestation of the tenderer. We will find such a condition in respect of a different set of documents. For instance, under the heading ‘Experience criteria’ (clause 2), the tenderers were instructed to submit relevant documents mentioned under that caption. While so, clause 2.3.6 reads that ‘All uploaded documents should be self-attested’. Therefore, it is clear that the self attestation was required by the 3rd respondent only to those documents uploaded by the tenderers relating to their experience in the field. Such a condition cannot be attributed to the scanned copy of the EMD draft for Rs.15.00 lakhs. (d) So far as the draft for Rs.8,000/-is concerned, in the table mentioned under the heading ‘NOTICE INVITING TENDER’ (Page 17 of Ex.P1) at Sl.No.11 & 12 it is mentioned that the process fee of Rs.8,000/-has to be remitted by way of DD payable to Executive Officer, SVVS Devasthanam, Kanipakam. There is no specific condition that the scanned copy of this DD shall contain a self attestation of the tenderer. So in my considered view, the objection taken by the 3rd respondent in this regard is untenable. 13. The next ground for rejection is that the petitioner has not enclosed two years experience certificate with reference to the work carried out as mentioned in clause 2.1.1(a). Clause 2 relates to EXPERIENCE CRITERIA. It reads thus: “2.1.1 -Shall submit relevant documents to meet the ‘Experience criteria’ of having “Proven capabilities of following, in any one year during the last five financial years i.e. 2014-15 to 2018-19: (a) The firm should have carried out House keeping Mechanized sanitation sweeping services activities in Rest house/Guest house/hostel/Hotel/Hospital/Schools in Government/Public Sector/Major Temples/any reputed organizations/Institutes in India, with a minimum experience of 2 years. Preference will be given to the firms who have executed similar nature of works in Major temples. Preference will be given to the firms who have executed similar nature of works in Major temples. (b) The firm shall have undertaken at least 150 rooms or 15,000 sqm., area either in any one of Rest house/Guest house/Hostel/Hotel/Hospital schools or combination, but in not more than two locations/premises. The experience in respect of completed works and ongoing works with minimum of one (year) completion period will only be considered. (c) Experience certificate should be produced for value of work done for Rs.200.00 lakhs in any single financial year from the last 5 financial years. (d) Experience certificates should also contain the details of work done for 150 Nos. of rooms/15000 sqm. area clearly. 2.2 -Financial Criteria Shall submit relevant documents i.e., set of work, order, agreement & experience certificates to meet the ‘Financial criteria’ of having “Annual turnover not less than Rs.200.00 lakh in House keeping, Mechanized sanitation sweeping services related works in any one year during last five financial years i.e., 2014-15 to 2018-19. 2.3 -In house works/Self certification of works will be not accepted. Agreement copies and work orders, bill forms alone will also not be considered. xx xx xx 2.3.5 – The tenderer has to enclose attested copies of experience certificate issued by the agreement concluding authority towards proof of experience criteria prescribed. In addition, copies of work orders and agreements are to be enclosed, to support the same.” 14. The above is the tender requirement regarding experience criteria and financial criteria should be possessed by every tenderer. That being so, the second reason for rejecting the technical bid of the petitioner is that the petitioner has not satisfied the experience criteria i.e., he did not enclose the two year experience certificate with reference to work carried out in the locations mentioned in 2.1.1 (a). Further, the petitioner has not enclosed documents showing that it has undertaken at least 150 rooms or 15,000 sqm. area in one of the above mentioned locations. So also, the petitioner has not uploaded the experience certificate issued by agreement concluding authority in terms of Clause 2.3.5. In the counter, it is alleged that the petitioner has enclosed the documents i.e., agreement and experience certificates not relevant to tender notification as they pertain to cleaning of shop rooms belonging to market yards of Mysuru Mahanagara Palike. So also, the petitioner has not uploaded the experience certificate issued by agreement concluding authority in terms of Clause 2.3.5. In the counter, it is alleged that the petitioner has enclosed the documents i.e., agreement and experience certificates not relevant to tender notification as they pertain to cleaning of shop rooms belonging to market yards of Mysuru Mahanagara Palike. In reply, the contention of the petitioner in its rejoinder is that it produced Ex.P.16 -experience certificate issued by Mysuru Mahanagara Palike, Karnataka State showing that the petitioner carried out house keeping work for shops in market complex and also the guest houses and bungalows which will meet the requirement mentioned in Clause 2.1.1 (b) and the same was not properly appreciated by the 3rd respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Ambati Srikanth Reddy vehemently argued that the 3rd respondent was not justified in rejecting the aforesaid certificate on the wrong assumption that it relates to the experience of the petitioner in respect of only shops in the market complex. Per contra, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent Sri G. Ramana Rao would argue that though the said experience certificate relates to the house keeping of shops in market complex as well as guest houses and bungalows, since there was no specific demarcation of the area of each category in terms of square meters and as the experience in house keeping of the shops is not a relevant one, the said certificate could not be considered. 15. A perusal of Ex.P.16 certificate dated 18.12.2019 shows, it was purportedly issued by M/s. Mysuru Mahanagara Palike certifying that the petitioner carried out the work of house keeping and environmental, sanitation, SMS which includes sweeping, cleaning and washing in markets holding 2080 shops in market complex measuring 18702 square meters and corporation guest houses and bungalows from 15.04.2011 till date. The contract amount per annum was Rs.3,39,73,344/-. Then, a perusal of Clause 2.1.1 (a) of Ex.P.1 shows that a tenderer should have carried out house keeping, mechanized sanitation and sweeping service activities in the locations such as, rest house/guest house/hostel/hotel/hospital/schools of the Government/public sector/reputed organisations/institutes and major temples. The experience in major temples will be given preference. As rightly argued by the 3rd respondent, experience in house keeping of shops in market complex is not a requirement specified in the aforesaid clause. The experience in major temples will be given preference. As rightly argued by the 3rd respondent, experience in house keeping of shops in market complex is not a requirement specified in the aforesaid clause. Therefore, the petitioner’s experience with respect to 2080 shops in market complex is of no avail in the present instance. No doubt, the certificate spells out the experience of the petitioner of composite locations i.e., 2080 shops in market complex plus corporation guest houses and bungalows. House keeping for Guest houses and their bungalows is no doubt a relevant experience in terms of Clause 2.1.1(a). However, as per Clause 2.1.1(b), if a tenderer claims house keeping experience in rest house/guest house/hostel/hotel/hospital/schools, then it shall produce experience certificate showing that it has undertaken at least 150 rooms or 15000 square meters area to fulfil Clause 2.1.1(b). However, as per Ex.P.16, the cumulative experience of the petitioner for 2080 shops and guest houses and bungalows is for an area of 18702 square meters and it is not known whether guest houses and bungalows consisted of 150 rooms or 15000 square meters area. As rightly argued by the counsel for the 3rd respondent, when there is no specific demarcation of the area among the shop rooms, guest houses and bungalows, the petitioner cannot put forth Ex.P.16 to bolster his experience. 16. It should be noted that the petitioner claimed his experience also through Ex.P.19 certificate dated 18.12.2019 said to be issued by Prashanth Multi-speciality Hospital, Bangalore. The said certificate shows that the petitioner undertook facility management service for the said hospital from 10.09.2009 till date covering 70 rooms, 1 ICU, 1 operation theatre and two labs measuring 75000 square feet. No doubt, house keeping for a hospital can be considered as relevant experience as per Clause 2.1.1(a). However, it is not known, whether the petitioner has uploaded Ex.P.19 as one of the tender documents to the 3rd respondent at the time of offering bid because in the counter affidavit of the 3rd respondent, we do not find any reference about Ex.P.19. However, it is not known, whether the petitioner has uploaded Ex.P.19 as one of the tender documents to the 3rd respondent at the time of offering bid because in the counter affidavit of the 3rd respondent, we do not find any reference about Ex.P.19. Be that it may, even assuming that Ex.P.19 was a part of tender documents, still it will not meet the required experience criteria for, as per Ex.P.19, the petitioner undertook the house keeping for a total area of only 75000 square feet whereas, as per Clause 2.1.1(b), the requirement is 150 rooms or 15000 square meters (15000 square meters = 161458.66 square feet). Also, the petitioner cannot claim a combination of Ex.P.16 and Ex.P.19 to meet the required experience in terms of 150 rooms/15000 square meters because there was no demarcation of area for each location in Ex.P.16. Thus, Ex.P.16 cannot be clubbed with any other certificate to claim a combined experience. Hence, Ex.P.19 is of no use to the petitioner. 17. Then, the petitioner claims experience through Ex.P.32 certificates said to be issued by the Health Officer, TTD, Tirumala. On perusal, Ex.P.32 contains two certificates i.e., one styled as “to whomsoever it may concern” dated 11.09.2003 said to be issued by the Health Officer, TTD, Tirumala, wherein it is mentioned that the petitioner carried out the maintenance of cleanliness and sanitation work at Unit-III – Saptagiri Satralu (7 blocks) and the work commenced from 01.09.2003 and the second certificate dated nil was also in similar lines stating that the maintenance of sanitation for 7 blocks in Saptagiri Satralu having 707 rooms between 01.09.2003 and 31.07.2005 done by the petitioner was satisfactory. Like Ex.P.19, it is not known, whether Ex.P.32 certificates were uploaded by the petitioner along with tender documents as there is no reference about Ex.P.32 in the counter. Even if Ex.P.32 certificates are taken into consideration, they will not meet the requirement because the said experience related to the period 2003 – 2005, whereas as per Clause 2.1.1, out of two years experience, one year experience must be between 2014-15 – 2018-19. Thus, the quondam experience is of no relevance. Thus, on a conspectus of record, it is clear that the petitioner failed to establish its experience in the relevant field as specified in the tender notification and therefore, the 3rd respondent rightly rejected its technical bid. Thus, the quondam experience is of no relevance. Thus, on a conspectus of record, it is clear that the petitioner failed to establish its experience in the relevant field as specified in the tender notification and therefore, the 3rd respondent rightly rejected its technical bid. Though the petitioner vehemently argued that the 3rd respondent showed bias towards the 4th respondent, it could not substantiate the said allegation and hence, the said contention cannot be countenanced. Similarly, the petitioner’s further contention that in the event a lone tenderer was left over, the authorities have to issue fresh notification also does not hold any merit because the 3rd respondent is the best person to decide the said aspect and the Court cannot impinge upon the 3rd respondent in that regard. At the outset, I do not find any merits in the writ petition. 18. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.