ORDER : Neranahalli Srinivasan Sanjay Gowda, J. 1. An order passed by the Appellate Authority in exercise of its powers under the provisions of the Karnataka State Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 1999 (for short "the KTPP Act") is under challenge, in this writ petition. 2. The facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are not in serious dispute. 3. A Tender for construction of Sea Erosion Protection Wall at Rudrapad in Gokarn village in Kumta Taluk, Uttara Kannada District, was issued by the State. 4. The said notification prescribed the qualifications of the Tenderer. According to Clause 3.3, each Tenderer was required to demonstrate that he owned at least 50% of the required/specified key and critical equipment for this work and that the remaining 50% can be deployed to lease/hire basis. 5. A further clause was Clause 3.3(b) which indicated that each Tenderer should further demonstrate that he had liquid assets and/or availability of credit facilities of not less than Rs. 118.00 lakhs. It was stated therein that the credit lines/letter of credit/certificates from banks for meeting the funds requirement etc. was necessary. It was also specified that the equivalent of the estimated cash flow for three months in the peak construction period would be the sum required. 6. Pursuant to the said notification, the petitioner submitted his Tender. The authorities found that the petitioner was technically qualified and accordingly proceeded to open his financial bid. On the financial bid being opened, it was noticed that he was the lowest bidder. 7. It is the case of the petitioner that at that stage a letter was addressed to the Executive Engineer by the local MLA to cancel the Tender and on the basis of the said letter the Appellate Authority has cancelled the Tender on the ground that the petitioner was not technically qualified. 8. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that he had demonstrated his eligibility to be a Tenderer by furnishing proof of possessing liquid assets to the tune of Rs. 118.00 lakhs by producing the certificates from the bank, which stated that he had fixed deposits to the extent of 1.25 crores. He submitted that since the bankers had certified that he had liquid assets in the form of fixed deposits for a sum of Rs. 1.25 crores, it could never be said that he had not demonstrated his eligibility. 118.00 lakhs by producing the certificates from the bank, which stated that he had fixed deposits to the extent of 1.25 crores. He submitted that since the bankers had certified that he had liquid assets in the form of fixed deposits for a sum of Rs. 1.25 crores, it could never be said that he had not demonstrated his eligibility. He submitted that it was not open for the Appellate Authority to go into the question of eligibility of the petitioner after the authorities had found that he was eligible technically to bid for the project. 9. In response, the learned Addl. Advocate General, Smt. K. Vidyavathi contended that the Tender document required furnishing of a banker's certificates in a particular format and since that was admittedly not produced along with the Tender Form, the Appellate Authority was right in rejecting the Tender. She submitted that it was not open for the petitioner to contend that no format was prescribed and that the document produced by him should be accepted. 10. Learned counsel for respondent No. 5, who had preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority supported the stand taken by the Government and sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 11. The Tender notification specified the qualifications from the Tenderers. One of the qualifications required was stated in Clause 3.3, which reads as follows: "3.3 Each Tenderer should further demonstrate: a) XXXXXX Availability by owning at least 50% of the required/specified key and critical equipment for this work and (b) the remaining 50% can be deployed on lease/hire basis for all works provided, the relevant documents (commitment agreements etc.) for availability for this work are furnished: Sr. No. Terms of equipment Minimum number of equipment required for this Procect Machineries to be owned Machineries could be leased/hired 1 Excavator (certificate copy of RC with Ownership, hire deed or purchase invoice with Latest Insurance Copies 2 1 1 2 Tipper (Certificate copy of RC with Ownership, hire deed or purchase invoice with Latest Insurance Copies 4 2 2 (b) Liquid assets and/or availability of credit facilities of no less than Rs. 118.00 lakhs (credit lines/letter of credit/certificates from banks for meeting the funds requirement etc. (usually the equivalent of the estimated cash flow for three months in the peak construction period')*" 12. 118.00 lakhs (credit lines/letter of credit/certificates from banks for meeting the funds requirement etc. (usually the equivalent of the estimated cash flow for three months in the peak construction period')*" 12. A plain reading of Clause 3.3(b) would indicate that all that the Tenderer was required to do was to demonstrate that he had liquid assets or had access or availability of a credit facility for a sum not less than Rs. 118.00 lakhs. The expected mode of credit facility as indicated in Clause 3.3(b) was credit lines/letter of credit/certificates from banks for meeting the funds requirement. 13. Section 3 of the Tender Notification, which deals with Qualification Information, contained a Clause 1.10, which reads as follows: "1.10 Evidence of access to financial resources to meet the qualification requirement specified in ITT Clause 3.3(b): Cash in hand, Letter of Credit etc., List them below and attach certificates from the bankers in the suggested format as under: This was followed by the format of the bankers certificate, which reads as follows: BANKER'S CERTIFICATE This is to certify that M/s. ................is a reputed company with a good financial standing. If the contract for this work, namely CONSTRUCTION OF SEA EROSION PROTECTION WALL AT RUDRAPAD IN GOKARN VILLAGE IN KUMTA TALUK, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT. (CH. 226.500 TO 227.00 KM) (WORKING CH. 226.050 KM TO 226.600 KM) is awarded to the above firm, we shall be able to provide overdraft/credit facilities to the extent of Rs. 118.00 lakhs to meet the working capital requirement for executing the above contract. Sd/- Name of the bank, senior bank manager, address ..........................." 14. As could be seen from Clause 1.10, the Tenderer was required to furnish an evidence of access to financial resources to meet the qualification requirement. The evidence was of either cash in hand or letter of credit etc., and the Tenderer was required to list that the evidence of financial resources and attach the certificate from the banker in the suggested format. 15. Obviously, if the petitioner had cash in hand, all that was required to be done was to furnish evidence that he possessed the requisite cash. If, on the other hand, he had access to a letter of credit then he was required to attach a certificate from the banker in the format suggested. 15. Obviously, if the petitioner had cash in hand, all that was required to be done was to furnish evidence that he possessed the requisite cash. If, on the other hand, he had access to a letter of credit then he was required to attach a certificate from the banker in the format suggested. What is important to be noticed in Clause 1.10 is that the Tender was only required to furnish the evidence of having financial resources. 16. Clause 3.3(b) required that the Tenderer should demonstrate that the Tenderer had liquid assets. A conjoint reading of Clause 3.3(b) and Clause 1.10 would indicate that the Tenderer only had to show that he had either liquid assets, cash in hand or access to credit. If a Tenderer had a liquid asset either in the form of cash on hand or by way of fixed deposits, the application only contemplated production of that resource as evidence of the said fact. The requirement of furnishing a bankers certificate in the format suggested was obviously applicable only to the Tenderer who wanted to evidence his capability to secure credit facilities from a bank. In other words, only if an applicant desires to obtain credit facilities from the bank would a certificate from the bank be required. 17. The argument of the Government that even when a Tenderer had liquid asset in the form of fixed deposit, he was still required to furnish a bankers certificate in the format prescribed cannot be accepted. Surely the Government cannot insist on a Tenderer to take credit even when he had adequate liquid assets at his disposal. 18. The Appellate Authority without considering the object behind Clause 3.3 has proceeded to allow the appeal only on the ground that the Tenderer had not furnished information regarding line of credit in the prescribed format and also regarding working capital. 19. As stated above, the petitioner had furnished a Bankers certificate, which reads as follows: TO WHOMSOEVER IT MAY CONCERN This is to certify that M/s. Yojaka (India) Pvt. Ltd., is out customer since 2016. We would like to confirm that they have a fixed deposit of Rs. 1.25 crores with us. List of Fixed Deposit enclosed below: This certificate is issued on the specific request of Yojaka (India) Pvt. Ltd., 20. We would like to confirm that they have a fixed deposit of Rs. 1.25 crores with us. List of Fixed Deposit enclosed below: This certificate is issued on the specific request of Yojaka (India) Pvt. Ltd., 20. A reading of the said certificate would indicate that the Tenderer had fixed deposits of 1.25 crores and this clearly proved that he had adequate liquid assets which was in excess of the requirement prescribed of 118 lakhs. I am therefore of the view, that the order of the Appellate Authority in rejecting the petitioner's technical bid cannot be sustained and the same is quashed. 21. The authorities shall now proceed to consider the financial bid of the petitioner and proceed to pass appropriate orders on the said financial bid in accordance with law. 22. The writ petition is accordingly allowed.