ORDER 1. This order shall also govern the disposal of Writ Petitions No. 40613/2024, 40616/2024 and 1495/2025 having regard to the commonality of the issues involved, as the petitioners are aggrieved of the award of the tender to M/s. Ronak Road Lines, the respondent in all the petitions. 2. For the sake of convenience, the facts as narrated in Writ Petition No.1488 of 2025 are being taken into consideration. 3. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners, seeking the following reliefs:- 71. Appropriate Writ, Direction or Order in the nature of mandamus,the impugned proceedings (Annexure-P/2 and Annexure-P/3) carried by respondent No. 1 along with its subsequent proceedings be quashed to the extent it holds respondent No. 3 successful in tender process. 7.2. Appropriate Writ, Direction or Order in the nature of mandamus, the Petitioner be held successful bidder in the leads on which the Respondent No. 3’s bid is accepted. 7.3. Appropriate Writ, Direction or Order in the nature of mandamus, the respondent No. 1 be directed to accept the Petitioner’s Bid and award him the work contract after rejecting the respondent No. 3’s tender. 7.4. Costs of this petition be awarded. 7.5. Any other appropriate relief, which this Hon’ble court may deem fit, be awarded to the petitioner.” 4. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 6.12.2024, whereby, in a tender for the transportation of the food grains, the technical bids were opened by the respondent No.1 Madhya Pradesh Rajya Aajeevika Forum, pursuant to the tender floated on 13.2.2024. In the impugned order dated 6.12.2024, the respondent No.3/Ronak Road Lines has been found to be eligible to award the work of transportation of the food grains. 5. In brief, the facts of the case are that the aforesaid tender was floated, inviting the bids for transportation of dietary supplements in various sectors. In the impugned order dated 6.12.2024, the respondent No.3/Ronak Road Lines has been found to be eligible to award the work of transportation of the food grains. 5. In brief, the facts of the case are that the aforesaid tender was floated, inviting the bids for transportation of dietary supplements in various sectors. In the aforesaid tender proceedings, the petitioner also took part and after opening of the bid, it was found that the petitioner was the L-2 in the leads, which the petitioner disputed, and challenged the award of tender to the respondent No.3/Ronak Road Lines on the ground that it is not even eligible to carry out the assigned work, as it has only the registration but does not have the licence as provided by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (in short FSSAI), which is a precondition prescribed in Clause No.1 of the tender document. It is also submitted that the registration of the by the FSSAI, and grant of licence by it are two different things. 6. Counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to the registration certificate issued to the respondent No.3/Ronak Road Lines as by the FSSAI under Food Safety and Standards (Licensing and Registration of Food Business) Regulations 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations of 2011), which provides that the petitioner is allowed to conduct the food business having the turnover up to 12 lakhs. It is stated that Clause 2.1.1 of the Regulations of 2011 provides for Registration for food business up to the value of less than Rs.12 lakhs; whereas the licence is provided under clause 2.1.2 for other food business over and above 12 lakhs, including the work of transportation. Thus, it is submitted that the impugned order, whereby the respondent No.3, who is entitled to do business only up to the limit of Rs.12 Lakhs, has been awarded the tender, deserves to be set aside as the work is worth more than Rs.12 Lakhs. 7. Thus, it is submitted that the impugned order, whereby the respondent No.3, who is entitled to do business only up to the limit of Rs.12 Lakhs, has been awarded the tender, deserves to be set aside as the work is worth more than Rs.12 Lakhs. 7. Identical petitions have also been filed by the petitioner/Rishi Golden Transport Company bearing W.P.Nos.40613/2024 and 40616/2024, wherein, an additional ground has also been raised that the entire action of the respondents to continue with the tender document is against the tender condition itself, as it is clearly provided that the validity of the offer shall be up to 120 days (Annexure P/6) only in W.P.Nos.40613/2024; whereas in W.P. No.40616/2024, it is 150 days, whereas the offers have been accepted beyond the aforesaid periods. It is also submitted that the bids were submitted on 29.2.2024; whereas it was opened on 10.12.2024, which was much beyond the period of 120/150 days, and the 120 days comes to an end in the month of June, 2024 itself. Thus, it is submitted that the entire bids are liable to be scraped and the respondent may be directed to call for fresh bids. 8. The prayer is opposed by Shri Manan Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent/State and it is submitted that an alternative remedy is available to the petitioners, which is provided in the tender document itself that any dispute arising out of the said tender documents can be referred to an arbitrator. However, it is not denied that so far as the contention of the petitioner that the respondent No.3/ Ronak Road Lines holds a certificate and not the licence issued by the FSSAI. It is also submitted that if the Court comes to a conclusion that the respondent No.3 is not eligible to be awarded the L-I position, in that case also, the respondents may be allowed to continue with the bids and conclude the same by awarding the same to the other eligible bidders. 9. Counsel for the respondent/State has also submitted that although the petitioner-M/s Rishi Golden Transport Company in W.P. No.40613/2024 and 40616/2024, has also raised a ground that the validity of the offer has already expired but, no such corresponding relief has been sought by the petitioner for scraping the tender process. Thus, it is submitted that no case for interference is made out. 10. Thus, it is submitted that no case for interference is made out. 10. In rebuttal, Shri Aviral Vikas Khare and Shri Rishi Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that so far as the alternative remedy is concerned, since the petitioners have not entered into any agreement/contract with the respondent hence, the question of referring the dispute to the Arbitrator does not arise. It is also submitted that even otherwise, there is no dispute regarding the contention of the petitioners that the respondent No.3 does not hold the licence as prescribed in the tender document, as the respondent No.3 only has a registration certificate, which could not have been considered to award the L-I position. 11. Shri Khare has also submitted that clause 7.7 of the tender provides for re-tendering on the discretion of the Chief Executive Officer, and in such circumstances, a re-tender may not be ordered. 12. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 13. So far as the question of alternative remedy is concerned, the Court has no doubt since there is no agreement executed between the petitioner and the respondents and there is no privity of contract between them, the matter cannot be referred to the Arbitrator. 14. So far as the merits of the case are concerned, this Court finds that the respondent No.3/Ronak Road Lines holds only a registration certificate. According to the Regulations of 2011, Sub clause 4 of clause 1.2.1 provides for the definition of Petty Food Manufacturer under Chapter 1, whereas, Chapter 2 provides for registration and licensing of food business. The relevant excerpts of the same read as under:- “ 1.2.1: Definitionsxxxxxx 4. According to the Regulations of 2011, Sub clause 4 of clause 1.2.1 provides for the definition of Petty Food Manufacturer under Chapter 1, whereas, Chapter 2 provides for registration and licensing of food business. The relevant excerpts of the same read as under:- “ 1.2.1: Definitionsxxxxxx 4. “Petty Food Manufacturer” means any food manufacturer, who (a) manufactures or sells any article of food himself or a petty retailer, hawker, itinerant vendor or temporary stall holder; or distributes foods including in any religious or social gathering except a caterer; (b) such other food businesses including small scale or cottage or such other industries relating to food business or tiny food businesses with an annual turnover not exceeding Rs.12 Lakhs and/or whose (i) production capacity of food (other than milk and milk products and meat and meat products) does not exceed 100 kg/ltr per day or (ii) procurement or handling and collection of milk is up to 500 litres of milk per day or (iii) slaughtering capacity is 2 large animals or 10 small animals or 50 poultry birds per day or less. 2.1 Registration and Licensing of Food Business All Food Business Operators in the country will be registered or licensed in accordance with the procedures laid down hereinafter. 2.1.1 Registration of Petty Food Business (1) Every petty Food Business Operator shall register themselves with the Registering Authority by submitting an application for registration in Form A under Schedule 2 of these Regulations along with a fee as provided in Schedule 3. xxxxxxx 2.1.2 Licence for food business (1) Subject to Regulation 2.1.1, no person shall commence any food business unless he possesses a valid license. xxxxxxxx .” 15. It is apparent from the aforesaid definitions only that a registration certificate is issued to petty food business operator only; whereas petty food business operator is defined to be a person who is inter alia involved in an annual turnover not exceeding Rs.12 Lakhs. xxxxxxxx .” 15. It is apparent from the aforesaid definitions only that a registration certificate is issued to petty food business operator only; whereas petty food business operator is defined to be a person who is inter alia involved in an annual turnover not exceeding Rs.12 Lakhs. Whereas under the Regulation 2.1.2, which provides for license for food business; it provides that subject to Regulation 2.1.1, no person shall commence any food business unless he possesses a valid license; meaning thereby, the registration for food business and a license for food business are two different aspects of the Regulations and the person who is having the registration only cannot deal in the matters, which are governed by the licence, which would be the matters in which, inter alia the turnover is more than exceeding Rs.12 Lakhs. 16. It is not disputed by the respondent No.3 that at the time when he submitted his tender he was only having the registration certificate and not the licence. In such circumstances, since as per clause 1.4 of the tender document, the bidders participating in the bidding process, must have a turnover of Rs. 3 Crores in the last three consecutive years with a minimum yearly turnover of Rs.05 Crores, apparently the respondent No.3 was not eligible to participate in the tender proceedings. Thus, on this ground only the impugned order deserves to be quashed. 17. So far as the other ground raised by Shri Rishi Tiwari, counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No. 40613/2024 & 40616/2024 regarding the validity of the offer, is concerned, as the contention of the petitioner is that the offer was valid up to 120/150 days only, it is found that the bid was apparently open beyond the period of 150 days, thus, the respondent no.1 had no authority under the tender conditions to accept any offer beyond the validity period. 18. 18. So far as the contention of Shri Khare that clause 7.7 of the tender provides for re-tendering on the discretion of the CEO is concerned, this court is of the considered opinion that if it is permissible for the CEO that under the terms and conditions of the Tender, it can be allotted to the person agreeing to give the minimum rates, it can do so, or otherwise, under the circumstances, when the offer period has already expired, the respondents are under an obligation to invite fresh tender which would also allow other persons to participate. 19. Resultantly, all the petitions are allowed, the tender awarded to the respondent No.3 Ronak Road Lines is hereby quashed and the respondent No.1 Madhya Pradesh Rajya Aajeevika Forum is directed to proceed further in accordance with the tender conditions, or to reissue the fresh tender, in accordance with law. 20. Signed copy of this order be kept in WP No.1488/2025 and a copy whereof be placed in connected petitions.