petitioner’s bid as non-responsive for Second and Third Tenders on the basis of revised work experience certificate dated 02.04.2025 without issuing a show-cause notice or an opportunity to the petitioner is in violation of principles of natural justice, we are of the view that the same pales into insignificance inasmuch as the DTL had taken into consideration the representation dated 09.04.2025 submitted by the petitioner and post consideration had passed the order dated 26.05.2025. It is pertinent to note that the financial bids which were to be opened on 11.04.2025 as per the schedule, were infact deferred till 15.04.2025 only for the purpose of considering the representation of the petitioner. In that view of the matter, we do not find any merit in the said submission too. It is also noted that the petitioner has not even challenged the order dated 26.05.2025. 18. According to the aforesaid analysis of the factual matrix obtaining in the present writ petition, it is clear that the experience certificate dated 05.02.2025 was indeed issued by TG TRANSCO and also confirmed by the said respondent vide letter dated 21.03.2025 communicated to DTL, yet, on the insistence of MEIL, the tendering authority i.e., TG TRANSCO, re-visited the said certificate and upon finding as a fact that SVPL had not executed jointing and termination works, issued the revised work experience certificate dated 02.04.2025. Even if this Court were to give due credence to all the submissions addressed on behalf of the petitioner, this indelible fact would by itself render the petitioner ineligible as per the tender conditions. Thus, there is no error muchless, any arbitrariness or unfairness in the DTL declaring the bid of the petitioner as ‘non-responsive’. As stated above, the petitioner who is
