more individuals, prescribing the conditions of partnership. The said document has nothing to do with the prior experience and prior turnover and the same cannot also be said to be a document, which has been given relaxation by the aforesaid circular. Irrespective of the fact whether a concern is a Startup/MSME or a concern, which has been in the business for a period of time, a deed of partnership is entered into at the time of starting of the concern between the partners and would not in any way be said to be a document, which could not be produced by the Startup/MSME due to its coming into existence fairly recently. Further, point (4) of the policy circular only speaks about the relaxation granted for prior turnover and prior experience for Startup/MSME in relation to public procurement relating to quality and technical specifications. A deed of partnership could not be said to fall either in the realm of quality or in the realm of technical specification, as it is a totally a separate document, which pertains to the formation of the partnership firm. Therefore, trying to import the circular into play in the present context is wholly misconceived and any view by this Court, in the line as projected by the petitioner, would be nothing but reading something into the policy circular, which is not intended by the Government. Further, it has been the consistent ratio laid down in a catena of decisions by this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court that nothing should be read between the lines so long as the same is clear and in the case on hand, the policy circular being clear and unambiguous and gives relaxation only insofar as prior turnover and prior experience are concerned, nothing can be imported or read between the said lines and, therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the documents mandated in the tender conditions should be read in conjunction with the policy circular and not in isolation is too far fetched to be accepted.
