the said clause from the very beginning when the RFB was issued by raising issues before the authorities and by filing the writ petitions in this Court. The said requirement at Sl.No.23 of Table-2 read with Form (S) being mandatory as is evident from the unambiguous language used in Form (S), the petitioner stood disqualified, also because of filing of two writ petitions before this Court, other than the present one and it could have been declared disqualified, accordingly, without evaluating the technical bid. Knowing well the litigation history of the petitioner who had filed two cases before this Court in relation to the RFB in question, the Technical Evaluation Committee proceeded to evaluate the bid submitted by the petitioner. Curiously, the opposite parties did not hold the petitioner disqualified by invoking the pre-qualification condition at Sl.No.23 of Table-2 read with Form (S) and disqualified it on the ground that it had not paid a sum of Rs.1,800/- of GST in addition to the bid processing fee of Rs.10,000/-. This is an undisputed fact that the petitioner had deposited the earnest money of Rs.80,00,000/- and the bid processing fee of Rs.10,000/- on the last date of submission of the bid. The said amounts have been accepted as „success‟ transaction by the system. We ponder, had it been otherwise, the payment in this regard would not have shown „success. It leads to a peculiar situation where, had the petitioner‟s bid been rejected on the ground of dis-qualification in view of the pre-qualification condition, which has been held to be not only arbitrary but also unconstitutional by us, there would have been no impediment for him to participate if a fresh notice was issued by the State Government upon deleting the said pre-qualification condition (Sl.No.23), in view of their own stand. We agree with the submission
