ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. Rahul Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Vikram Sharma, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for respondent No. 1 and Mr. Anish Tiwari, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 2. 2. The petitioner as well as respondent No. 3, along with others, had participated pursuant to an e-tender notice (‘NIT’) vide E-Tender Kra/Parivahan/2022-23/154 issued on 21.10.2022 by respondent No. 2 inviting bids from interested bidders for long route transport work. Technical bid was opened on 11.11.2022 wherein four bidders including the petitioner and respondent No. 3 were found to be qualified. On 24.11.2022, financial bid was opened and while the petitioner was found to be L-2, respondent No. 3 was found to be L-1. 3. Case of the petitioner is that on 23.11.2022, petitioner had raised an objection stating that in terms of Clause 4.2 of the NIT, what was asked for was Truck, but respondent No. 3 had uploaded vehicle particulars of Trailer, and therefore, respondent No. 3 is liable to be disqualified for not meeting the technical criteria. 4. Another objection taken was that in the Pre-Contract Integrity Pact, there was absence of signature of the bidder, i.e. authority issuing the NIT. 5. Mr. Rahul Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without considering such objection, financial bid was opened, and therefore, approach is made to this Court by filing this writ petition. 6. Mr. Anish Tiwari, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 2 submits that objection of the petitioner was not considered as the same was received very late. He, however, submits that there is no merit in the objections raised by the petitioner. 7. With regard to the ground taken in connection with the Pre-Contract Integrity Pact, it is submitted by him that even in the Pre-Contract Integrity Pact submitted by the petitioner, there was no signature of the tendering authority and both the Pre-Contract Integrity Pact submitted by the petitioner and respondent No. 3 were identical. It is submitted that the buyer, meaning thereby the tenderer, submits the Pre-Contract Integrity Pact along with the tender and the same is, later on, signed by the tendering authority. 8. Mr. Agrawal does not dispute that the Pre-Contract Integrity Pact submitted by the petitioner also contains only the signature of the petitioner. 9. It is submitted that the buyer, meaning thereby the tenderer, submits the Pre-Contract Integrity Pact along with the tender and the same is, later on, signed by the tendering authority. 8. Mr. Agrawal does not dispute that the Pre-Contract Integrity Pact submitted by the petitioner also contains only the signature of the petitioner. 9. In that view of the matter, no further consideration is called for with regard to the argument advanced by Mr. Agrawal in connection with Pre-Contract Integrity Pact. 10. So far as the argument of the petitioner that the tender of respondent No. 3 was technically deficient, it not having met the criteria as laid down in Clause 4.2 of the NIT, it is submitted by Mr. Tiwari that the very basis of the argument of Mr. Agrawal is on slippery ground inasmuch as tender was issued in respect of Heavy Goods Vehicle (Truck) and Clause 6.8 of the NIT defines the Heavy Goods Vehicle to mean Heavy Goods Vehicle as laid down in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for short ‘Act of 1988’ and going by the definition, the petitioner fulfills the criteria. 11. Perusal of Clause 4.2 would indicate that the while the basic expression is Heavy Goods Vehicle, the word ‘Truck’ is inserted in small bracket. Heavy Goods Vehicle is defined under Section 2(16) of the Act of 1988 to mean any goods carriage the gross vehicle weight of which, or a tractor or a road-roller the un-laden weight of either of which exceeds 12,000 kilograms. Gross Vehicle Weight is defined in Section 2(15) of the Act of 1988 to mean in respect of any vehicle the total weight of the vehicle and load certified and registered by the registering authority as permissible for that vehicle. 12. A minute examination of Section 2(16) would go to show that it contemplates two situations: (i) any goods carriage the gross vehicle weight of which exceeds 12,000 kilograms, or (ii) a tractor or a road-roller the un-laden weight of either of which, exceeds 12,000 kilograms. Thus, two expressions have been used, namely, gross vehicle weight and un-laden weight. While un-laden weight is referable to a tractor or road-roller, gross vehicle weight is referable to goods carriage. Thus, two expressions have been used, namely, gross vehicle weight and un-laden weight. While un-laden weight is referable to a tractor or road-roller, gross vehicle weight is referable to goods carriage. Gross vehicle weight of vehicle in terms of Section 2(15) of the Act of 1988 is the un-laden weight plus the load certified and registered by the registering authority, which is the laden weight. 13. Keeping the aforesaid perspective in view, when we consider the vehicle particulars to which our attention is drawn by Mr. Agrawal, we find that the un-laden weight of the vehicle, which is a Trailer, is 12,230 kilograms and laden weight is 42,000 kilograms, and therefore, the goods carriage vehicle offered by respondent No. 3 meets the criteria as laid down in Clause 4.2 of the NIT. 14. In that view of the matter, there is no merit in this writ petition, and accordingly, the same is dismissed.