The Managing Director, Raj. State Food and Civil Supply Corpn. & Another (S.B. S. B. Date of Order: January 08, 2013. PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA Mr. D. S. Punia, for the petitioners. Mr. Krishna Verma, Dy.GA for respondents. BY THE COURT: This petition has been filed aggrieved of the rejection of petitioners' bid for supply of fortified Aata with reference to notice inviting tender (NIT) dated 1682012 issued by the Rajasthan State Food and Civil Supply Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter `the Corporation') as modified on 792012. In the context of rejection of petitioners' bid it has been prayed that the tender process for grant of contract for the supply of fortified Aata be quashed and set aside and fresh tenders be called for where under the case of petitioner firm for grant of contract for supply of the goods in question be considered. The facts of the case are that a NIT came to be issued on 1682012 by the Corporation inviting applications/ tenders for consideration for grant of contract for supply of fortified Aata to the dairy booths and ration shops under public distribution system. The NIT was amended on 792012, where under the last date for submission of application by way of uploading the application online for consideration of the Corporation was fixed as 2092012. The bidding process was two part: Technical and Financial. The technical related to eligibility condition and the financial to price competitiveness. Financial bids of only those successful in the technical bids were to be opened. The technical bids were to be opened on 2192012. It would be in place to point out that the mandatory terms and conditions of the tender as set out in the NIT were to be complied with by each of the bidders. Tenderers intending to participate were required to upload the tender form (digitally signed) as per checklist along with all essential documents. For the purpose of the present writ petition it is admitted position that the bidders were required as an essential condition of their bid to upload a certificate issued to them by MSME Development Institute (Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises), a Central Government organisation determining and verifying grinding capacity of the tenderer/ applicant at a minimum 10 Metric Ton per day. The importance of the capacity certificate issued by the MSME cannot be discounted for the reason that the evaluation of the capacity of the tenderer was essential for determining the ability of successful bidder for supply of Aata of the requisite quantity. The petitioner firm uploaded its tender application along with certain documents as mandated in the NIT. It is however an admitted position that the petitioner firm did not upload the MSME certificate evidencing that it had the capacity of grinding minimum 10 MT per day. In these circumstances on the opening of the technical bid on 21112012, the petitioner firm was not found eligible and consequently its bid was rejected disentitling it from the consideration of its financial bid. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the MSME certificate evidencing grinding capacity of the petitioner firm could not be obtained from the competent authority prior to 40 days from the date of moving an application therefor. The petitioner firm, it is stated, moved the requisite application for the MSME certificate on 1492012, which could not be available up to 40 days thereafter, consequent to which the tender was uploaded without the MSME certificate. Counsel submits that the MSME certificate was received from MSME(a Government of India Organisation) and mode available to the competent authority on 27112012at the time of the opening of the financial bids of the other successful bidders. It is submitted that in the interest of justice and wider participation in the bidding process to facilitate competitive bids the MSME certificate of the petitioner firm ought to have been considered along with its bid. It is submitted that MSME organisation is a central government undertaking and the procedural laches in the grant of capacity certificate ought not to have worked against the right of consideration of the petitioner firm. Mr. Krishna Verma, learned counsel for the respondents would however submit that the terms and conditions of the tender are within the domain of the Corporation. It is submitted that even though while considering bids, waiver of nonessential conditions in nondiscriminatory fashion was a discr