JUDGMENT : Arup Kumar Goswami, J. Heard Mr. B.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D.N. Prajapati, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent. 2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, essentially, calls into question Clauses ‘f’ and ‘j’ of Stage-I or Envelope I (Pre-qualification stage) of the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated 11.05.2022 issued by the respondent inviting sealed tenders / rate contracts from the manufacturers/company or their authorized dealers for Hi-tech Mist Chamber and Nursery Green House with Hardening Facility (Tender-I). By the said NIT, tenders / rate contracts were also invited in respect of Laboratory equipment, enzymes and/or pilot plant production systems for protein and sugar (Tender-II). 3. The last date for submission of sealed tender was 10.06.2022 at 2.00 pm. Tenders received were to be opened on the same very day at 3.00 pm. 4. The petitioner had not participated pursuant to the aforesaid NIT. 5. In order to appreciate the grievance expressed, it will be appropriate that Clauses ‘f’ and ‘j’ are reproduced at the very outset. They read as follows : “Stage-I or Envelope I (Pre-qualification stage) : …...… xxx xxx xxx f. The participating company/Firm/Party should have minimum turnover of Rs. 5.0 crores every year in the last three consecutive financial years (2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22) which should be reflected by submission of audited balance sheets. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx j. The manufacturing license of the similar products under proposed to be purchased from the competent authority must be enclosed.” 6. Mr. Sharma submits that the world has faced devastating effect of the Covid-19 pandemic which started in March, 2020 and even now business activities had not reached the pre-Covid-19 stage, and therefore, there is no justification for laying down an eligibility criteria that participating tenderers must have minimum turnover of 5.0 crores every year in last three consecutive years, more so, in view of the fact that the value of the tender is only 2.0 crores. It is his contention that such condition has been fixed only to sub-serve the interest of blue-eyed tenderers of the tendering authority. It is also contended that a dealer is not in a position to produce manufacturing license though a dealer is also allowed to participate under the NIT in question and the same reflects total non application of mind. It is his contention that such condition has been fixed only to sub-serve the interest of blue-eyed tenderers of the tendering authority. It is also contended that a dealer is not in a position to produce manufacturing license though a dealer is also allowed to participate under the NIT in question and the same reflects total non application of mind. Accordingly, he submits that the aforesaid Clauses ‘f’ and ‘j’ are liable to be struck down. 7. Abiding by the stand taken in the reply, Mr. Prajapati submits that the scope of work, as indicated in the NIT, is a specialized work, which can be completed by experienced and reputed firms only and, therefore, condition of having minimum turnover of 5.0 crores every year in last three consecutive financial years has been prescribed and to ensure smooth progress of work, the manufacturing license of similar products proposed to be purchased has been asked to be submitted in terms of Clause ‘j’. He submits that 6 (six) tenderers had submitted tenders. It is submitted by him that a tendering authority is the best judge of its requirement and accordingly, aforesaid Clauses have been inserted so that work can be completed smoothly and without any hindrance. It is further submitted that in the reply, it is stated that if the petitioner is a manufacturer, his production license could also be considered. 8. The aforesaid reply was filed by the respondent on 08.06.2022 i.e., two days before the last date of submission of tender. 9. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials on record. 10. A perusal of the documents annexed in the writ petition would go to show that a new certificate of commencement of production dated 06.07.2021 was issued in the name of Sidhharth Enterprises, of which the petitioner is the proprietor, by the District Trade and Industries Centre, Durg. 11. On a query of the Court as to whether the petitioner manufactures the scope of work under Tender-I, Mr. Sharma submits that the petitioner does not manufacture the aforesaid item, but the petitioner is in a position to supply the same. 12. A perusal of the NIT would go to show that the tenders are invited only from the following categories of tenderers, namely, manufacturers / company or their authorized dealers. 13. Sharma submits that the petitioner does not manufacture the aforesaid item, but the petitioner is in a position to supply the same. 12. A perusal of the NIT would go to show that the tenders are invited only from the following categories of tenderers, namely, manufacturers / company or their authorized dealers. 13. In the writ petition, it is stated that the petitioner is in the business of manufacturing and trading of different goods and having a certificate of registration in its favour issued by the Government of India. There is no averment that the petitioner is a dealer of any manufacturer of the scope of work in Tender-I. In absence of any such averment, it has to be understood that the petitioner does not fall in the category of the entities who are eligible to submit tender. There is no challenge that the NIT has restricted participation of tenderers only to a few categories of entities. If that be the position, though it is really not necessary to consider as to whether Clauses ‘f’ and ‘j’ are terms which are not justified, we notice that the turnover of the petitioner for the year 2019-20 was Rs.39,40,000.00, for the year 2020-21 Rs.41,74,988.00 and for the year 2021-22 Rs.3,68,54,515.94. It goes to show that total turnover of the preceding three years is not even 5.0 crores though the requirement of the NIT is 5.0 crores every year in the last three consecutive years. In two of the years, turn over was less than even Rs. 50 lakh, while the value of the work is Rs.2.0 crores. Though the Covid-19 pandemic has adversely affected all activities, Clause ‘f’ cannot be held to be unreasonable at the instance of the petitioner. We also do not find any irregularity in insisting as an eligibility condition that the intending tenderer has to submit the manufacturing license. If the manufacturer is interested to participate, obviously, it can enclose a copy of the manufacturing license. Not all dealers are permitted to participate. Only dealers who have been authorized by the Company and / or the Manufacturer can participate in the NIT. If the dealer is authorized, we see no reason as to why it would not be in a position to submit copy of manufacturing license. 14. Not all dealers are permitted to participate. Only dealers who have been authorized by the Company and / or the Manufacturer can participate in the NIT. If the dealer is authorized, we see no reason as to why it would not be in a position to submit copy of manufacturing license. 14. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that there is no merit in this petition and, accordingly, the same is dismissed. 15. The interim order passed earlier shall stands vacated. No cost.