IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 6210 of 2024 ----- M/s. Prasad Construction & Co., represented through its duly authorized representative namely, Vikrant Kumar, son of Sri Shree Kant Prasad, aged about 45 years; having Head Office: Lila Mohan Niwas, Nai Sarai, Bihar Sharif, Nalanda, Bihar-803101; Branch Office: Flat No. 3 B, 3rd Floor, K.C. Complex, Vishnu Gali, Main Road, Post Office-Ranchi-GPO, District-Ranchi-834001. … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Urban Development & Housing, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi-834004. 2. Jharkhand Urban Infrastructure Development Company Limited (JUIDCO) through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Urban Development Department, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi- 834004. 3. M/s. KMV Projects Ltd., through its Managing Director, Plot No. 8-3-948/949, 4th Floor, Solitaire Plaza, Beside Image Hospital, Ameerpet, Hyderabad, Telangana- 500073. … … Respondents ------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, Adv. For the Resp. No.2 : Mr. Krishna Murari, Adv. Mr. Rajvardhan, Adv. Mr. Ritesh Pathak, Adv. For the Resp. No.3 : Mr. Sridhar Potaraju, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sudhanshu Kumar Singh, Adv. ------ 04/25.02.2025 Heard the counsel for the parties. 2. On 02.12.2024 this Court had passed the following interim order is extracted hereinbelow: “ Issue notice to the respondents. 2. Mr. Krishna Murari accepts notice on behalf of the respondent No.2-JUIDCO. 3. Counsel for the petitioner contends that though the petitioner had uploaded the experience certificate on the websitejharkhandtenders.gov.in, in Annexure-2 proceedings of the tender committee dt. 28.08.2024, it is stated that it is not submitted. Counsel has produced the downloaded copy from the said website indicating that the experience certificate was uploaded, prima facie, establishing that non-consideration of the petitioner’s claim for award of tender on that ground was not legally valid and is arbitrary. 4. Counsel for the petitioner further contends that the successful bidder i.e. respondent No.3, has shown experience of certain technical personnel which the petitioner in a legal notice dt. 07.09.2024 has questioned by stating that they claimed to have been working as engineers much before they obtained the degree of Bachelor of Engineering; and that in the reply notice dt. 01.10.2024 issued by the respondents, there is an evasive answer thereto. 5. Prima facie, we find force in the said contentions of the counsel for the petitioners and it appears that the decision to award work to the third respondent vide a work order/agreement dt. 07.10.2024 appears to be arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the constitution of India. Therefore, there shall be interim stay of execution of the work by the third respondent of the subject work mentioned in the said agreement dt. 07.10.2024 until further orders. 6. List this case on 29.01.2025. 7. Counter affidavit be filed, in the meantime.” 3. I.A. No. 1071 of 2025 has been filed by the 3rd respondent to vacate the said order. 4. After perusing the pleadings of the parties, it is apparent that though the petitioner had uploaded an experience certificate at the time of making his bid, there was a further requirement that bidders should also attach a certificate issued by a Statutory Chartered Accountant for payment received from the projects. In the rejoinder filed by the petitioner, it is admitted that the certificate filed by the petitioner/uploaded by the petitioner at the time of submitting the bid, did not contain the details of the payments received from the projects and it only contained details of turnover and profit and loss. In the counter-affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, this is stated emphatically. 5. As regards, the qualification/experience of certain technical personnel offered by the 3rd respondent, it is clarified by the counsel for the 3rd respondent that Sri. V. Sridhar, though proposed as Project Manager-cum-Team Leader was not accepted by the 2nd respondent, and Sri Parameshwar Reddy who fulfilled the requirement of requisite experience, was accepted for holding the said position. Counsel for the 3rd respondent has also clarified that, Sri. MVSNP Kutumba Rao was proposed as quality manager and since the said person had also a diploma in engineering, he was found to have fulfilled the qualification requisite for the post of Quality Manager and so he was accepted by the 2nd respondent. As regards, Mr. Amit Sarkar proposed by the 3rd respondent for the post of Surveyor, it is clarified that the 2nd respondent did not accept the candidature of the said individual and had instead accepted D. Rajashekar and Shankaraiah P. for the said position. 6. Having regard to these facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in the writ petition, accordingly the interim order dated 02.12.2024 in W.P.(C) No. 6210 of 2024 is vacated; I.A. No. 1071 of 2025 is allowed; and the writ petition is dismissed. (M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.) (Deepak Roshan, J.) Amardeep/Vikas