JUDGMENT : Vipin Sanghi, J. A Supplementary Counter Affidavit has been filed by Mr. Abhijay Negi, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 & 3 in the Court. The same is taken on record. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The petitioner has assailed the rejection of the petitioner’s technical bid on two grounds, namely that the Experience Certificate submitted by the petitioner is of another Firm, and secondly, that the work is not of similar nature. 4. If either of these two grounds for rejection of the technical bid is made out, in our view, this petition would be liable to be dismissed. 5. Clause 2.4.2 of the Tender Document requires specific construction experience to be shown by the bidders. Requirement Single Entity Joint Venture Submission Requirements All partners combined One Partner Each Partner Participation as prime contractor in at least One contract that was started and had been successfully completed in any one year in last Five years, with a value of at least 25% of the estimated cost of the work, and that are similar to the proposed works. It shall consist of Stone masonry and cement concrete work in any natural/artificial drainage. Must meet requirement Must meet requirement Not applicable Not applicable Form given in Section 4 EXP 2 6. The bidders had to show their experience in Form EXP 2. As we have already noticed in our order passed yesterday, the Form EXP 2 submitted by the petitioner only related to road work, and did not relate to ‘stone masonry and cement concrete work in any natural/artificial drainage’. 7. The submission of Mr. Kamat, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, is that this Court should look at the BOQ of the work in question, and if the same is examined in the light of the work experience of the petitioner, the petitioner would be found to be having the requisite experience. We refuse to undertake any such exercise. 8. Clause 2.4.2 is very specific. It lays down the requirements, which the bidders have to meet. The last sentence, namely “It shall consist of Stone masonry and cement concrete work in any natural/artificial drainage” cannot be read as mere surplus. Even without this sentence, the requirement could have been complete. We refuse to undertake any such exercise. 8. Clause 2.4.2 is very specific. It lays down the requirements, which the bidders have to meet. The last sentence, namely “It shall consist of Stone masonry and cement concrete work in any natural/artificial drainage” cannot be read as mere surplus. Even without this sentence, the requirement could have been complete. However, the respondents have consciously included the past experience, which the bidders should have in stone masonry and cement concrete work in any natural/artificial drainage. Admittedly, the petitioner does not have that experience, as the petitioner has provided in Form EXP 2 the work related to road construction. 9. Mr. Kamat has sought to draw our attention to the experience certificate of the petitioner and related documents to show that the petitioner has done the work of constructing Kachcha drain and undertaking the cross- drainage work. 10. Prima facie it appears to us that neither of these two works can be equated with ‘stone masonry and cement concrete work in any natural/artificial drainage’. Even otherwise, these are technical issues, which we are not in a position to evaluate and assess. Such technical evaluation can only be undertaken by a technically qualified person, which has been done. 11. We, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the rejection of the petitioner’s technical bid. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. 12. Consequently, pending application, if any, also stands dismissed. 13. Let certified copy of this order be issued today itself, on payment of the prescribed charges, as per rules.