Managing Director, Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation Justice Sujoy Paul, Judge Justice Shailendra Shukla, Judge Presence: Shri Vijay Panwar, learned counsel for petitioner. Shri Vivek Patva, learned counsel for respondent. Whether approved for reporting: ORDER 07.04.2021 As per: Sujoy Paul,J. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution assails the order dated 4th March 2021 (Annexure P/1) whereby petitioner's bid has been rejected during technical evaluation for the reason i.e. "disqualified due to non submission of partnership deed". [2] The relevant facts necessary for adjudication are that petitioner is a limited liability partnership (LLP) Firm registered pursuant to Sec.58 of the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008 (for short "the Act"). Petitioner filed copy of registration certificate as Annexure 2 WP No.7682/2021 P/2. The respondent issued an etender cum auction notice on 2/2/2021 (Annexure P/3). The petitioner submitted bid on 2/3/2021 which was duly acknowledged by respondent on the same date (Annexure P/4). Petitioner filed his bid document as Annexure P/5. Prior to this, petitioner's enrollment requisition was also acknowledged by the respondent through email dated 2/3/2021 (Annexure P/6). The respondent by email communication dated 4/3/2021 (Annexure P/7) at 12.40 PM confirmed that petitioner's bid has been admitted by the Committee. [3] Shri Panwar, learned counsel for petitioner submits that on the same day i.e. 4/3/2021 at around 3.58 PM the respondent sent another email letter to petitioner informing that for non submission of partnership deed his bid has been rejected. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that as per tender document there was no requirement to submit any partnership deed. The petitioner has already filed the certificate of registration on conversion issued by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India (Annexure P/2). In addition, petitioner filed the power of attorney (Annexure P/5) whereby Mr. Akhtar Hussain was authorised on behalf of petitioner to take all necessary steps. The rejection of petitioner's bid is arbitrary, unjustifiable and impermissible in law. [4] Per contra, Shri Vivek Patva supported the impugned order on the basis of reply. He submits that petitioner has an alternative remedy under Clause 3.7 of NIT. Petitioner may prefer representation before the Managing Director who, in turn, will take a decision within 30 days. It is further submitted that petitioner himself filed the LLP agreement with the petition (page 77). The petitioner should have filed this document along with the tender. The relevant clause of NIT makes it obligatory for the bidder to provide partnership deed in case of partnership firm and authorization by other partners. 3 WP No.7682/2021 [5] In the reply, the respondent further urged that as per terms of the NIT, the technical valuation of all the offers received by the respondent was done by a Valuation Committee on 4/3/2021. The Valuation Committee in its report dated 4/3/2021 (Annexure R/2) opined that petitioner has submitted power of attorney only and partnership deed is not submitted. In absence of filing the partnership deed, the authenticity and validity of a bidder could not be checked and, therefore, his bid was rightly rejected. The registration certificate of petitioner (Annexure R/3) shows that if petitioner is a company, then also it was required to submit its board resolution which has not been submitted. For this reason also petitioner was not eligible. [6] No other point is pressed by the parties. [7] We have heard the learned counsel for parties at length and perused the record. [8] At the outset, we deem it proper to deal with the objection of availability