3. The primary ground of challenge to the process undertaken pursuant to the tender notice in question, as urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that subsequent to last date of submission of the tenders, the tendering authority/scrutiny committee has changed the tender condition by defining “similar type of work”, and hence, changing the goalpost, after the game commences, was not permissible. Such an action, as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, on the part of the respondents is illegal. Drawing our attention to Clause 8 (2) of the tender document, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that tenderer was to fulfill a condition to have completed satisfactorily similar type of work on or any time after 1st April, 2018. The said clause in the tender condition defines “similar type of work” to mean three works not less than 40% of the contract value or two similar works not less than 50% of the contract value or one similar work not less than 80% of the contract value. Our attention has also been drawn by the learned counsel for the petitioner to a letter dated 26th October, 2023, which is addressed to the President of the petitioner-Association by the Superintendent Engineer, Public Works Department, Kolhapur, annexing therewith minutes of the meeting held on the same date, i.e., 26th October, 2023, it has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Clause 4 of the said minutes of meeting gives clarification that tenderers having experience of having executed work of box type structure, CD work and the contractors engaged in the construction of bridge were eligible in the said tender and that the said conditions were mentioned in the tender.
