JUDGMENT : Arup Kumar Goswami, J. Heard Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Assistant Solicitor General for Union of India, appearing for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Mr. Mahendra Dubey, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 3. 2. The petitioner is a joint venture of M/s. Shubham Infrastructures and M/s. Shree Karni Traders. 3. The petitioner had submitted tender in response to a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) bearing E tender No. E-R-T-82-21-22 dated for the work of (i) Construction of RUB at Km. 800/21-23 in lieu of manned level crossing No.403 between Baikunth-Silyari section in Howrah-Mumbai main line. (By Box Pushing technique) (ii) Construction of RUB at Km. 802/21-23 in lieu of manned level crossing No.404 between Baikunth-Silyari section in Howrah Mumbai main line. (By Box Pushing technique) (iii) Construction of RUB at Kn. 814/14-16 in lieu of manned level crossing No.407 between Silyari-Mandhar section in Howrah Mumbai main line.(By Box Pushing technique). 4. The bid was submitted by the petitioner on 17.03.2022 and its techno-commercial bid came to be rejected on 26.05.2022 with the remarks “not qualifying in technical criteria as mentioned in similar nature of work”. 5. When the matter was taken up for consideration on 02.06.2022, it was submitted by Mr. Mishra that financial bid has already been opened on 26.05.2022 and M/s. Madhusudan Agrawal JV has been declared L-1 and that further proceedings are going on in respect of issuance of Letter of Award. By the order dated 02.06.2022, this Court had stayed issuance of Letter of Award till the next day of hearing, if the same had not been issued till then. Subsequently, the petitioner had filed an amendment application to array M/s. Madhusudan Agrawal JV as respondent and it was impleaded as respondent No.3 by an order of the Court dated 14.06.2022. Another application for amendment, being I.A. No. 6 of 2022, was allowed by an order dated 05.07.2022. 6. Mr. Deshmukh submits that the sole ground on which tender of the petitioner has been rejected was on account of the petitioner having not uploaded the self-certificate mentioning “Running Railway Line”, as required under Clause 4.1.1 of the tender document. Another application for amendment, being I.A. No. 6 of 2022, was allowed by an order dated 05.07.2022. 6. Mr. Deshmukh submits that the sole ground on which tender of the petitioner has been rejected was on account of the petitioner having not uploaded the self-certificate mentioning “Running Railway Line”, as required under Clause 4.1.1 of the tender document. He has further submitted that the petitioner had uploaded two numbers of work experience certificates and therefore, assuming that self-certification certificate was not uploaded, the same is not material, as the same cannot be construed as a mandatory condition. He further submits that though the petitioner wanted to upload the self-certification certificate, it could not be uploaded as, against ‘Document Uploading’ in respect of Clause 4.1.1, it is mentioned ‘Not Allowed’. He has submitted that if the petitioner was required to upload a self-certification certificate, such document should have been allowed to be uploaded, but when the respondents had themselves not allowed uploading of the document by mentioning ‘Not Allowed’, no fault can be attributed to the petitioner. 7. Mr. Mishra submits that the petitioner had uploaded 27 files of documents containing 194 pages along with the offer, but the petitioner had not uploaded the self-certification certificate. He has also submitted that the statement of the petitioner that the document uploading is not allowed is not correct and he contends that one M/s. Jhajharia Nirman Limited had submitted the work experience certificate without mentioning “Running Railway Line”, but he had uploaded the self-certificate mentioning name of work/CA No./Work Order No. etc. He has contended that Clause 4.1.1 is only by way of guidance and clarification and therefore, in Clause 4.1.1 of the tender document it was mentioned that documents uploading is not allowed. He submits that relevant provision is Clause 4.1 and not 4.1.1 as is sought to be contended by Mr. Deshmukh. He submits that the petitioner has taken a false plea that he was prevented from uploading the self-certification certificate, which was required to be mandatorily uploaded if the work experience certificates do not contain the words “Running Railway Line”. 8. Mr. Dubey endorses the submission of Mr. Mishra. 9. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials on record. 10. 8. Mr. Dubey endorses the submission of Mr. Mishra. 9. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials on record. 10. Clause 4 is relevant and the same reads as follows : Important : All documents uploaded and remarks/confirmation entered by the bidders against any eligibility condition shall be opened as part of technical bid only Standard Technical Criteria S. S. No. Description Confirmation Required Remarks Allowed Documents Uploading 1 The tenderer must have successfully completed any of the following during last 07 (seven) years, ending last day of month previous to the one in which tender is invited : Three similar works each costing not less than the amount equal to 30% of advertised value of the tender, or Two similar works each costing not less than the amount equal to 40% of advertised value of the tender, or One similar work each costing not less than the amount equal to 60% of advertised value of the tender. NOTE : Work experience certificate from private individual shall not be considered. However, in addition to work experience certificates issued by any Govt. Organization, work experience certificate issued by Public listed company having average annual turnover of Rs. 500 crore and above in last 3 financial years excluding the current financial year, listed on National Stock Exchange or Bombay Stock Exchange, incorporated/ificates. In case tenderer submits work experience certificate issued by public listed company, the tenderer shall also submit along with work experience certificate, the relevant copy of work order, bill of quantities, bill wise details of payment received duly certified by Chartered Accountant, TDS certificates for all payments received and copy of final/last bill paid by company in support of above work experience certificate. No No Allowed (Mandatory) 1.1 Definition of Similar Work :- Construction of “Road Over Bridge on running Railway Line” and/or “Road under Bridge/Limited Height Subway on running Railway line” Note : (i) If the certificate submitted by the tenderer does not contain mention of Running Railway Line”, the tenderer shall have to certify separately and upload on IREPS portal along with offer as follows : Work for which certificate submitted (duly mentioning name of work/CA No./W.O. No. etc) has/have carried out on Running Railway Line.” (ii) The cost component of the qualifying bridge work in completion certificate should at least be as per technical eligibility criteria No No Not Allowed 11. Perusal of the affidavit filed by the respondents goes to show that Indian Railways Electronic Procurement System (IREPS) portal is being used for online tendering process and that where the document uploading is required for evaluation and scrutiny of the documents uploaded by the bidders, there are provisions for uploading the documents indicating “document uploading allowed mandatory” or “allowed optional”. However, where certain clauses are inserted for guidance, clarification, instruction, the same are to be read and followed by the intending tenderer and in respect of such clauses, documents uploading is noted as “not allowed” by the software itself and accordingly, the same is reflected in the NIT. 12. We are in agreement that Clause 4.1.1 is in the nature of guidance. Apart from defining what is “similar work”, taking note of the fact that even though in some cases a tenderer might have completed similar work, but certificates may not have reflected “Running Railway Line”, over which construction of Road Under Bridge (RUB) is to be made, in order not to cause any prejudice to such tenderers whose work experience certificates do not contain expression “Running Railway Line”, the tenderer was allowed to certify separately indicating “Work for which certificate submitted (duly mentioning name of work/CA No./W.O. No. etc) has/have carried out on Running Railway Line” with offer. 13. It is an admitted position that the experience certificates submitted by the tenderer do not mention of “Running Railway Line”, and therefore, the necessity for self-certification as mentioned in Note 1 of Clause 4.1.1 arises. 14. In Clause 4.1.1, it is made very clear that the certificate has to be uploaded along with the offer on IREPS portal. 13. It is an admitted position that the experience certificates submitted by the tenderer do not mention of “Running Railway Line”, and therefore, the necessity for self-certification as mentioned in Note 1 of Clause 4.1.1 arises. 14. In Clause 4.1.1, it is made very clear that the certificate has to be uploaded along with the offer on IREPS portal. Evidently, the documents are to be uploaded in terms of Clause 4.1. We are of the considered opinion that the plea taken by the petitioner that because of the expression “not allowed” as against Clause 4.1.1, he could not upload self-certification certificate, cannot be accepted. Having regard to the requirement of self-certification with regard to “Running Railway Line”, in case of work experience certificates not containing the words “Running Railway Line”, would go to show that the words “Running Railway Line” was of crucial importance in the context of the tender and therefore, we are of the opinion that it cannot be construed that such self-certification is only directory in nature. 15. In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in this application and, accordingly, the same is dismissed. 16. Interim order stands vacated.