6. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of the records, from the submissions and the pleadings made by the petitioner, it appears that he has participated in the tender floated by the respondent No.3 for 12 of the products. For all the 12 products the petitioner had submitted independent individual security deposits. Of the 12 products, the petitioner could qualify as L-1 only in respect of 3 of the products. The work orders were also issued. However, the petitioner, for reasons best known, could not fulfill the supply for the 3 products wherein he was qualified as L-1. The respondent authorities have initiated appropriate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner for the said default. They have also in addition to the forfeiture of the security deposit, blacklisted the petitioner for a period of three years. However, as regards the other 9 products where the petitioner has submitted his tender documents along with their security deposit, there does not seem to be any default on the part of the petitioner. That, as undoubtedly the petitioner was not declared L-1 and some other third party agency was declared L-1 and who was also given the work order.
