JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, learned senior counsel for the petitioner assisted by Mr. Shobhit Mishra. Also heard Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for respondents 1 to 3 along with Mr. Vikram Sharma, learned Deputy Government Advocate and Mr. Aman Preet Singh Rahi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4. 2. The petitioner participated in a tender being Tender No. TD/02/TC dated 13.11.2021 for assembling, establishing, procuring technology, designing, developing, producing, embossing, affixing and fitting of High Security Registration Plates ('HSRP', for short). The bid of the petitioner came to be rejected at the stage of techno-commercial evaluation on account of not meeting the eligibility criteria. The reasons, however, were not disclosed, as to why the bid was rejected. 3. Subsequent to the order dated 17.02.2022, Mr. Shrivastava has filed affidavit on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 indicating the reasons for which bid of the petitioner came to be rejected. 4. It is stated that because of non-compliance of Clause 1.1.4 read with Clause 4.3.1 (xi), Clause 1.2.3 (PAN and ITR not submitted), Clause 4.3.1 (xxiv) (Certificate of Laser Printing not submitted), 6.8 (undertaking not submitted) of the Instructions to Bidders (for short, ITB) and Annexure (xix) (undertaking not submitted). It is also pointed out that bid document fee was not paid as per the tender requirement. 5. Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner fulfills the eligibility criteria as laid down in Clause 1.1.4 and to demonstrate that the petitioner has the requisite qualification, he has drawn our attention to pages 36, 37 & 38 of the writ petition and accordingly, submits that the ground for rejection on account of non-compliance of Clause 1.1.4 is wholly misconceived. He submits that all that is required under clause 1.1.4 is that it must be executing HSRP for at least 5 whole States/Union Territories in India for a minimum period of one year, in last five financial years, at least in one make of vehicle. With regard to non-furnishing of Income Tax Return and PAN Card, he has submitted that the same were duly uploaded. With regard to non-furnishing of Income Tax Return and PAN Card, he has submitted that the same were duly uploaded. With regard to Clause 4.3.1 (xi), he submits that since the petitioner fulfills the eligibility criteria in terms of Clause 1.1.4, necessarily, there is compliance of the clause and the ground for rejection on account of non-conforming to Clause 4.3.1(x) does not stand. With regard to alleged non-compliance of Clause 4.3.1 (xxiv) for non-furnishing of certificate of Laser Printing, it is submitted by him that such a certificate is not required as the machine offered by the petitioner itself has in-built laser printing mechanism and such a clause is relevant only for those tenderers, whose machine does not have in-built laser printing mechanism. With regard to Annexure (xix), he submits that there is no requirement of submitting the same at the stage of techno-commercial evaluation in terms of Clause 4.3.1. It is also contended that certificate in terms of Clause 6.8, which provides that the project will be implemented by the contractor himself, is also not required to be submitted in terms of 4.3.1. Mr. Bharat submits that the bid of the petitioner is less than the bid of the respondent No. 4 and if the respondent No. 4 is awarded the contract instead of the petitioner, the people of the State will have to bear extra burden. In substance, Mr. Bharat submits that technical bid of the petitioner has been rejected on irrelevant and extraneous grounds in order to sub-serve the interest of blue-eyed tenderer, namely, respondent No. 4 and therefore, an interim order is called for restraining the respondent/State authorities from proceeding with the tender process. 6. Mr. Shrivastava submits that the documents on which Mr. Bharat has placed reliance to contend that the petitioner meets the eligibility criteria as laid down Clause 1.1.4, demonstrate, on the face of it, that the petitioner falls short of the requirement prescribed. He submits that the petitioner has dealt with only one make of vehicle, namely, Suzuki Motorcycle and Scooters, while there are hundreds of makes of vehicles in the country, and therefore, by no stretch of imagination can it be said that as required under Clause 1.1.4, the petitioner has been implementing HSRP in all RTOs/DTOs of the respective States. He submits that the petitioner has dealt with only one make of vehicle, namely, Suzuki Motorcycle and Scooters, while there are hundreds of makes of vehicles in the country, and therefore, by no stretch of imagination can it be said that as required under Clause 1.1.4, the petitioner has been implementing HSRP in all RTOs/DTOs of the respective States. It is submitted by him that, the respondent No. 4 had the experience of implementing HSRP in all RTOs/DTOs as required and respondent No. 4 was the only agency through which all makes of vehicles were registered in the RTOs and DTOs of the States in which it was offered the contract. He has also submitted that it is not correct as submitted by Mr. Bharat that Clause 6.8 does not come into picture at this juncture, inasmuch as Clause 6.8 itself provides that an undertaking that the project would be implemented by the contractor himself, shall have to be enclosed in the technical bid, which the petitioner, admittedly, had not complied with. It is also contended that the petitioner has submitted its tender document fee by way of demand draft of AXIS Bank, instead of a Nationalized Bank, as required under the ITB. He has also submitted that annexures are part of tender documents and admittedly, the petitioner has not submitted Annexure (xix), an undertaking. With regard to non-furnishing of ITR and PAN card, it is submitted that the tendering process is undertaken by a different agency and the documents submitted by said agency do not contain the ITR and PAN card in respect of the petitioner. It is submitted that the aforesaid agency has not been made a party respondent in this proceeding. 7. Mr. Rahi has endorsed the submissions of Mr. Shrivastava. In addition, he submits that the plea taken by the petitioner that it has uploaded the ITR and PAN card is a false plea taken. He submits that the documents submitted by the tenderer can be downloaded subject to fulfillment of certain conditions and the respondent No. 4 had downloaded the tender documents of all the competing bidders including that of the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner had only given the balance-sheet of profit and loss for the years 2019-2020 and 2020-2021. He submits that the documents submitted by the tenderer can be downloaded subject to fulfillment of certain conditions and the respondent No. 4 had downloaded the tender documents of all the competing bidders including that of the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner had only given the balance-sheet of profit and loss for the years 2019-2020 and 2020-2021. He has also submitted that when the petitioner was implementing HSRP only in respect of Suzuki Motorcycles and Scooters, the same does not fulfill the requirement as there are more than hundred makes of vehicles in the country. 8. Issue notice on motion, returnable in 10 weeks. 9. List along with WPC No. 786/2022. 10. As all the parties are represented, no formal steps are called for. 11. At the outset, it will be appropriate to take note of 1.1.4, Clause 1.2.3, Clause 4.3.1(xii) & (xxiv) and Clause 6.8, which are extracted herein below:- "1.1.4 The Sole Bidder/Lead Bidder (in the case of Consortium) must have Technical Experience in executing/executed High Security Registration Plate Project for at least 5 whole States/Union Territories in India for a minimum period of one year, in last five financial years. The scope of such contract should be for implementing HSRP in all RTO's/DTO's of the respective State/Union Territory. 1.2.3 The Sole Bidder/Lead Bidder and Consortium Member shall submit the copy of their PAN, GST and ITR filed for last financial year, i.e. 2019-2020. 4.3.1 TECHNICAL BID documents are as following: xxx xxx xxx xii. Current Contract Commitment/Works in progress in India as shown in Annexure XIII. xxx xxx xxx xxiv. The Sole Bidder/Lead Bidder (in the case of Consortium) should also enclose documents relating to the tie-up or the approvals from the testing agency for sourcing of the following: 1. Reflective Sheeting. 2. Aluminum Plates. 3. Hot stamping Foils 4. Holograms 5. Laser Printing 6. Snap Locks Prices should not be indicated in the technical bid in any form. 6.8 No Subletting/Sub contracting Being a High Security Project, the contractor shall be required to implement the Project by himself. Subcontracting/sub-letting Franchise will not be allowed under any circumstances. Reflective Sheeting. 2. Aluminum Plates. 3. Hot stamping Foils 4. Holograms 5. Laser Printing 6. Snap Locks Prices should not be indicated in the technical bid in any form. 6.8 No Subletting/Sub contracting Being a High Security Project, the contractor shall be required to implement the Project by himself. Subcontracting/sub-letting Franchise will not be allowed under any circumstances. An undertaking to this effect must be enclosed with the Technical Bid that the project will be implemented by the Contractor himself." Annexure (xix), which is also not submitted, is extracted hereinbelow.:- "Annexure XIX UNDERTAKING I/We ........, hereby solemnly affirm and undertake that I/we has/have NOT been:- (a) convicted of cognizable offence by any Court of Law with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, or (b) imposed a penalty of rupees one crore or more for violation of the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (46 of 1973) (since repealed) or the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (42 of 1999); or (c) detained under the National Security Act, 1980, (65 of 1980) or the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, (61 of 1985); or (d) adjudged guilty by the Stock Exchange Board of India or any other such Financial Regulatory Boards or Tribunals or Agencies; or (e) found to be associated in any manner with an organized crime syndicate or its associate or with any Association declared unlawful under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, (37 of 1967) or any other law for the time being in force; or (f) found to be connected with activities prejudicial to the National Security, is not considered for selection as manufacturer or vendor for supply of High Security Registration Plates. Signed by an Authorized Officer of the Bidder Title of Officer" Name of the Bidder Date" 12. A perusal of the documents at pages 35, 36 and 37 of the writ petition goes to show that the petitioner has implemented HSRP scheme for only Suzuki motorcycles and scooters in 05 States since 01.04.2019. It appears to us that implementation of HSRP in all RTOs/DTOs, prima facie, would mean registration of all makes of vehicles and not limited to only a particular make of a vehicle and therefore, prima facie, the petitioner does not meet the scope of contract as visualized under Clause 1.1.4 in implementing HSRP in all RTOs/DTOs. It appears to us that implementation of HSRP in all RTOs/DTOs, prima facie, would mean registration of all makes of vehicles and not limited to only a particular make of a vehicle and therefore, prima facie, the petitioner does not meet the scope of contract as visualized under Clause 1.1.4 in implementing HSRP in all RTOs/DTOs. Admittedly, the petitioner has not furnished any undertaking as required under Clause 6.8. There is dispute also with regard to submission of PAN Card and Income Tax Return. 13. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that petitioner has failed to make out a case for grant of an interim order as prayed for and, accordingly, the prayer for interim order is rejected.