JUDGMENT : Notice to the respondents. 2. Mr. Prashant Pallav, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent No.3. I.A. No. 4441 of 2025 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent No.3. 4. The respondent No.3 published a Notice Inviting Tender for the work “Dispatch of coal through RLS System at Banadag Railway Siding of Pakri Barwadih Coal Mining Project for a period of 15 months vide Annexure-3 dated26.12.2024 through the respondent No.2. 5. The petitioner participated in the tender process along with 15 others including respondent Nos. 5 to 9. 6. A technical evaluation of bid was carried out and thereafter the respondent No.2 published online list of bidders, who were declared as qualified. 7. Out of total 15 bidders, 6 bidders were declared qualified including the respondent Nos. 5 to 9. 8. Thereafter, price bid of technically qualified bidders was opened by the respondent No.2 and the respondent No.5 was declared as L-1 bidder. 9. In this writ petition the following prayers have been made: “(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, directing Respondent-Government e-Marketplace (for short ‘GEM’) to upload and give access of bid documents of bidders who participated in bid invited by Respondent-GeM in respect of Bid No.GEM/2024/B/5735597 dated 26.12.2024 in order to enable one or the other bidders to have access to qualifying documents of other bidders enabling them to bring it to the notice of owner or employer of the project, the grounds of ineligibility of competitive bidders in terms of judgment of Apex Court rendered in the case of Afcons Infrastructure Limited Vs. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Limited & Anr., reported in (2016) 16 SCC 818 ; (ii) For issuance of further appropriate writ, order or direction, including Writ of mandamus, directing Respondent authorities to re-evaluate the bid submitted by private Respondent Nos. 5 & 6, specially because both the aforesaid Respondents have used common documents/credentials for meeting the technical criteria as specified in bid document and after re-evaluating the same, if it is found that common credentials have been used by them, the said Respondents may be disqualified;” 10. This writ petition has been filed on 07.04.2025 and the papers were served on learned counsel for the respondent No.3. This writ petition has been filed on 07.04.2025 and the papers were served on learned counsel for the respondent No.3. When it is listed today, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 seeks further time to file counter affidavit stating that the work in question has already been awarded on23.04.2025 to the respondent No.5. 11. In the writ petition, it is specific pleading of the petitioner at paragraphs-23, 26 & 30 that the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 in order to meet technical criteria under the tender document have used the same work orders including technical credentials of work of loading of railway rakes and both of them got themselves qualified in the present bid, but despite the said fact, the respondent No.3 as well as the respondent No.2 did not examine the documents and have declared both the said bidders technically qualified. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 has placed before us certain documents, which also suggest that the plea taken by the petitioner is correct. Therefore, the respondent No.5 is restrained from executing the work in question till further orders. 13. The aforesaid interlocutory application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) No. 2092 of 2025 14. List this case on 17.06.2025. 15. Counter affidavit will be filed by the said date.