JUDGMENT P.K. Musahary, J. 1. The facts giving rise to filing of this petition are that the Deputy Director, Urban Development and Housing. Pasighat Division, Pasighat, issued Notice Inviting Item Rate Bids (NIB) dated 11.9.2008 followed by a corrigendum dated 14.9.2008 from enlisted contractors of APPWD and those of appropriate list of Department of Telecommunication, MES, Railways, NHPC, NEEPCO for "Improvement of Road Network at Pasighat". In response to the aforesaid NIB, the petitioner along with M/s. T.K. Engineering Enterprises (Respondent No. 6) and others participated in the tender process. A Scrutiny Committee was constituted for evaluation and assessment of the comparative merit of the Bids of all the Bidders. During evaluation of the technical bids, the said scrutiny committee found certain defects and irregularities in the technical bid of the private respondent No. 6 but in spite of that the Committee qualified it for the next stage i.e. financial bid. No defect was found in the technical bid of the petitioner and as such, it was also found qualified by the said Committee for the financial bid. On 4.2.2009, the Committee opened the financial bids. A comparative statement was prepared in respect of the merit of the financial bid of both the petitioner firm and the private respondent No. 6 and after considering the same, the said Committee rejected the financial bid of the private respondent No. 6 finding that the rate of amount quoted by it is about 54.10% above the estimated cost put to the tender. Accordingly, the Committee recommended the bid of the petitioner firm to the competent authority for approval of the aforesaid contract work in favour of the petitioner firm after finding that the rate of amount quoted by it i.e. Rs. 473.60 is about 4.40% below the estimated cost put to the tender and the same is within the acceptable zone. The Respondent-Chief Engineer refused to accept the recommendation of the aforesaid Scrutiny Committee inasmuch as, the aforesaid Committee constituted on 10.9.2008 was cancelled with immediate effect vide office order No. DUD/PLG-313/2007-08/7619-20 dated 2.2.2009 and the said committee had no authority to make such recommendation. The Respondent-Chief Engineer rejected the recommendation of the aforesaid Committee and he himself made re-evaluation/re-consideration of the bids offered by the petitioner and the private respondent No. 6. The Respondent-Chief Engineer rejected the recommendation of the aforesaid Committee and he himself made re-evaluation/re-consideration of the bids offered by the petitioner and the private respondent No. 6. After such re-evaluation/re-consideration he recommended the bid of the private respondent No. 6 to the Government and facilitated to get the contract work awarded in its favour. For recommending the bid of respondent No. 6, the Respondent-Chief Engineer, had a secret negotiation in exclusion of other tenderers including the petitioner in violation of the terms and conditions of the Notice Inviting Bids (NIB)/Standard Bidding Documents. The Petitioner contends that the Respondent-Chief Engineer issued the aforesaid order dated 2.2.2009 cancelling the Scrutiny Committee on back date with vested interest like favouring the respondent firm inasmuch as the holder of the power of attorney of the said firm is his sister-in-law. The respondent-Secretary who is also related to respondent No. 3 by showing nepotism mechanically approved the recommendation made by the Respondent-Chief Engineer and ultimately the private respondent No. 6 have been awarded with the aforesaid contract works. 2. In this writ petition, (i) the order dated 2.2.2009 cancelling the constitution of Scrutiny Committee for scrutiny of tender documents/NIT allegedly on back date; (ii) secret post negotiation in exclusion to other tenderers; (iii) re-consideration/re-evaluation of bids of tenderers by the Respondent-Chief Engineer himself cancelling the recommendation of the Tender Sub-Committee and making recommendation afresh in favour of the private respondent No. 6 out of alleged nepotism and vested interest and (iv) approval given by the Respondent-Secretary to the aforesaid recommendation of the Respondent-Chief Engineer without applying her mind and without considering the related merit of the tenderers; are under challenge in this writ petition. 3. I have heard Mr. S.N. Sarma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Gowsami, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 6. Also heard Mr. T. Pertin, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 3 and Mr. R. H. Nabam, learned Senior Govt. Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 5. 4. At the outset, Mr. Sarma has drawn my attention to the Notice Inviting Bids which particularly mentions about "item rate tenders from enlisted contractors of APPWD and those of appropriate list of Department of Telecommunication, MES, Railways, HTPC, NEEPCO" and other relevant clauses therein. Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 5. 4. At the outset, Mr. Sarma has drawn my attention to the Notice Inviting Bids which particularly mentions about "item rate tenders from enlisted contractors of APPWD and those of appropriate list of Department of Telecommunication, MES, Railways, HTPC, NEEPCO" and other relevant clauses therein. The petitioner firm was registered as a local class-I Contractor under APPWD on 5.6.2008 whereas, the respondent firm is not a registered firm under APPWD and the same is enlisted as Contractor in category-C under Hindustan Prefab Ltd. Jangpura, New Delhi vide No. HPL/Dy. M (Corp) 'En-list-C/07-08/254 dated 7th February 2008 upto a tendering amount of Rs. 15.00 Cr. to Rs. 50.00 Cr. valid up to two years and as such, the Respondent firm is not qualified to participate in the tender process. 5. According to Mr. Sarma, in compliance to Respondent-Chief Engineer's order dated 11.9.2008, the Scrutiny Committee for scrutiny of Tender Documents was held in the office chamber of Joint Director, Urban Development and Housing on 4th February, 2009 at 3.00 p.m. and made the comments and observations under the heads namely, (i) Comparison of Registration; (ii) Comparison of Solvency Certificate and Bank Certificate; (iii) Comparison of similar works in last 5 years; (iv) Comparison of quantity of works during last 5 years; (v) Comparison of T and P; (vi) Comparison of annual average turnover during last 5 years; (vii) Comparison of key personals and technical man-power; (viii) Comparison of programme and quality assurance programmes; (ix) Abstract of technical qualification. The said committee after making technical scrutiny found both the petitioner firm and the respondent firm almost equally capable. While financial scrutiny was made in respect of the petitioner and respondent firms, the said committee came to the conclusion as follows : (1) The rates quoted by M/s. T.K. Engineering Enterprises, Naharlagun is 54.10% above the estimated cost put to tender which is abnormally high and not acceptable. Further, the quoted amount has gone against the conditions of the contract. (2) The rates quoted by M/s. Tama Fabrication Works, Naharlagun is 4.40% below the estimated cost put to tender seems to be within the acceptable zone. On the basis of the aforesaid finding, the said Committee recommended the rates quoted by the petitioner firm i.e. M/s. Tama Fabrication Works, Naharlagun, for appropriate decision of the competent authority. (2) The rates quoted by M/s. Tama Fabrication Works, Naharlagun is 4.40% below the estimated cost put to tender seems to be within the acceptable zone. On the basis of the aforesaid finding, the said Committee recommended the rates quoted by the petitioner firm i.e. M/s. Tama Fabrication Works, Naharlagun, for appropriate decision of the competent authority. The said recommendation was made by all the members, who were present, during both technical and financial scrutiny. 6. It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order dated 2.2.2009 cancelling the aforesaid scrutiny Committee was issued back dated only to show that the said Committee was cancelled before the Scrutiny Committee recommended in favour of the petitioner after thorough examination of technical and financial bids of the bidders. According to Mr. Sarma, the aforesaid impugned cancellation order was received in the office of the Deputy Director, Urban Development and Housing only on 12.2.2009 i.e. after a lapse of 10 days and after the scrutiny and recommendation were already made. Further, it is submitted that on 2.2.2009, the Respondent-Chief Engineer was at Delhi, stayed in Arunachal Bhawan in Room No. 204 booked in his name and it was not possible on his part to pass the aforesaid cancellation order on 2.2.2009. The dissolution of the scrutiny Committee on a back date and rejection of the recommendation of the Committee, according to Mr. Sarma, smacks mala fide intention to accommodate his favourite party and such action of the Respondent-Chief Engineer is unauthorised, illegal and arbitrary which warrants interference by this Court in exercise of power under judicial review. The Respondent-Chief Engineer is not authorised to scrutinize the technical and financial bids of the tenderers by himself, more so when the same were already scrutinised and recommended by a duly constituted Sub-Committee. While recommending in favour of the Respondent firm the Respondent-Chief Engineer observed that "M/s. T.K. Engineering Enterprises has originally quoted Rs. 450.72 lakhs which was escalated due to correction did in the original quoted rate and agreed to execute within the quoted rate, hence a chance may be given to the firms which will result in saving of Rs. 22.88 lakhs whereas on the other hand awarding of works to M/s. Tama Fabrication will incur an extra amount of Rs. 22.88 lakhs from the Govt. exchequer." 7. From such recommendation, according to Mr. 22.88 lakhs whereas on the other hand awarding of works to M/s. Tama Fabrication will incur an extra amount of Rs. 22.88 lakhs from the Govt. exchequer." 7. From such recommendation, according to Mr. Sarma, it is apparent that the respondent-Chief Engineer wanted to award the work with the respondent firm by way of appeal to the Secretary, Urban Development and Housing to give a chance to the said respondent firm to save the public exchequer. It has also been made clear in the said recommendation that a post negotiation between the Respondent-Chief Engineer and the respondent firm took place, which is unauthorised, illegal and arbitrary inasmuch as, no offer was made to the petitioner firm like the respondent firm. If the petitioner firm was allowed to participate in the negotiation, it could have also offered revised rate and agreed to execute the work at the rate offered by the respondent firm. The way, the petitioner was excluded from the post tender negotiation raises doubt in the action taken by the Respondent-Chief Engineer and the approval given by the Respondent-Secretary to the said recommendation in favour of the respondent firm. 8. It has been argued for the petitioner that even if it is accepted that the aforesaid cancellation order dated 2.2.2009 was passed, the same remained uncommunicated in the office file inasmuch as the copy of the said order was not made available to the Deputy Director, Urban Development and Housing, Pasighat Division and other members of the Scrutiny Committee. Such cancellation order, unless communicated, can have no force or authority whatsoever and the same has no valid existence in the eye of law. In support of this submission, Mr. Sarma cities the case of State of West Bengal v. M.R. Mondal and Anr. reported in (2001) 8 SCC 443 . 9. Further it is argued that the petitioner firm after scrutiny of his technical bid by the Committee was found equally capable of doing the work and after scrutiny of the financial bid, the said Committee recommended the rates quoted by the petitioner firm. reported in (2001) 8 SCC 443 . 9. Further it is argued that the petitioner firm after scrutiny of his technical bid by the Committee was found equally capable of doing the work and after scrutiny of the financial bid, the said Committee recommended the rates quoted by the petitioner firm. The petitioner thereby can claim legitimate expectation in respect of settlement of the work with it and whenever the question of legitimate expectation arises, it is to be determined not according to the claimant's perception but in the larger public interest wherein other more important consideration may outweigh what would otherwise have been the legitimate expectation of the claimant. In this regard, the learned Counsel for the petitioner cites the case of Food Corporation of India v. M/s. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries reported in (1993) 1 SCC 71 , wherein the Apex Court also held that the doctrine of legitimate expectation gets assimilated in the rules of law and operates in our legal system. Next, he submits that the terms and conditions of the tender notice have been violated by the respondent authorities and as such, the action of the respondent authorities is illegal and arbitrary which must be interfered with by this Court. It is also submitted that the terms and conditions are to be strictly complied with by the setting authority and any deviation from the said terms and conditions would call for interference by the Court. In this regard, the case of Ram Gajadhar Nishad v. State of U.P. and Ors. reported in (1990) 2 SCC 486 has been relied upon. As regard his submission on illegality of secret negotiation, Mr. Sarma cities the case of M/s. Sangita Advertising Agency v. Union of India and Ors. reported in (1997) 1 GLT 521, wherein it is held by this Court that the procedure adopted by the respondent authorities in awarding the contract without allowing the petitioner to participate, therefore, must be arbitrary and unfair and the contract awarded in such manner is liable to be set aside. reported in (1997) 1 GLT 521, wherein it is held by this Court that the procedure adopted by the respondent authorities in awarding the contract without allowing the petitioner to participate, therefore, must be arbitrary and unfair and the contract awarded in such manner is liable to be set aside. Regarding favouritism shown by the authorities and its illegality and arbitrariness, he cities the case of Progoty Supply and Cooperative Society Limited v. State of Assam, reported in 1995(III) GLT 124, wherein, it is held by this Court that the Government cannot show favour to a particular firm for awarding the contract and any negotiation made by the Government with the particular firm privately without offering similar opportunity to other tenderers amounts discrimination and arbitrariness in State action. 10. The writ petitioner filed an additional affidavit on 30.3.2009 in support of its allegations that the impugned office-order No. PGS/UDH/W-72/2008-09/191-95 dated 16.3.2009 (Annexure-G to the writ petition) was issued by the Deputy Director, Pasighat Division, Department of UD and Housing accepting the tender of the respondent firm for the aforesaid work, after the announcement of schedule for General Parliamentary Election of 2009, was published on 2.3.2009 and the model code of conduct came into effect and the Govt. and its authorities are not allowed to give employment, contract work etc. The model code of conduct being in force, it is argued for the petitioner that the aforesaid impugned order awarding the contract work with the respondent firm is illegal and unauthorised and as such, the same is liable to be cancelled and quashed. 11. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent No. 6 asserting allegations to the effect that the Committee members of the Scrutiny Committee tampered with certain figures in the financial bid of the respondent firm, which the Committee could not have done, raising the bid of the respondent firm to Rs. 763.91 lakhs against its bid of Rs. 450.72 lakhs. In Paragraph-6 of the said affidavit, the respondent firm tried to justify why it submitted a bid of 450.72 as under: ....The deponent firm had in all the carriage charge from Guwahati to Pasighat which has a distance of 670 kilometer had quoted a rate of Rs. 2220 and from Lekhabali to Pasighat which has a distance of 100 kilometers had quoted an amount of Rs. 2220 and from Lekhabali to Pasighat which has a distance of 100 kilometers had quoted an amount of Rs. 322 and had accordingly quoted the rate at the rate indicated above, but the scrutiny committee had on their on volition tampered with the rates quoted by the deponent firm and re-fixed the rate of the deponent firm which the committee could not have done. The deponent has procured a copy of the financial bid submitted by the deponent and scrutinised by the committee which will clearly reveal that the Committee had with ulterior motive raised the rate of the deponents bid so as to be able to make their recommendations in favour of the petitioner firm. Mr. Goswami, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 6, in this regard, draws the attention of this Court to general abstract of cost on quantity, rate and amount of the materials under the head of (a) RCC slap culvert-2 mtr span in CD structure annexed with annexure-A series to the writ petition. In respect of the respondent firm, the rates offered by it have been corrected by inserting new rates raising the amount to Rs. 7227048.00. In the aforesaid sub-head under head CD structure, the petitioner quoted at the rate of Rs. 430789.10 which comes to Rs. 1292367.30 and the respondent firm quoted rate at Rs. 1277805.00, which may be seen from the rates and amounts quoted by the respective firms in the Annexure-C series at pages 74 and 75 to the writ petition. From the aforesaid figures, it is found that the respondent firm quoted lower rate than the rate quoted by the petitioner firm but due to the arbitrary correction made by the members of the Scrutiny Committee, the respondent firm's rate has been found/shown higher than the petitioner's firm. Mr. Goswami, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 6 submits that it is not a mere correction of arithmetical error but a purposeful correction with some oblique motive to favour the petitioner firm which is not permissible at all under the terms and conditions of the tender notice. 12. According to Mr. Mr. Goswami, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 6 submits that it is not a mere correction of arithmetical error but a purposeful correction with some oblique motive to favour the petitioner firm which is not permissible at all under the terms and conditions of the tender notice. 12. According to Mr. Goswami, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 6, the Respondent-Chief Engineer having found the irregularities and illegalities committed by the members of the Scrutiny Committee in their evaluation and recommendation, interfered with the same and himself took the task of scrutiny of the bids and made a separate recommendation in favour of the respondent firm. Such action of the Respondent-Chief Engineer cannot be faulted simply because, as alleged by the petitioner, the attorney holder of the respondent firm is his sister-in-law or the Respondent-Secretary, who approved the recommendation, happened to be a relation of the said attorney holder Except the vague allegation, that the Respondent-Chief Engineer indulged in nepotism and acted mala fide in the matter of awarding the contract in favour of the private respondent No. 6, argues Mr. Goswami, no material has been placed to substantiate the said allegation and as such, the recommendation made by the Respondent-Chief Engineer in favour of the respondent No. 6 cannot be disturbed. It is further submitted that the Respondent-Chief Engineer rightly rejected the recommendation made by the Scrutiny Committee inasmuch as the said Committee found the bid of the respondent firm to be substantially unresponsive on account of the unauthorised correction/tampering and re-fixing of the rates quoted by the respondent firm at their whims. Moreover, the said Scrutiny Committee was dissolved by an order dated 2.2.2009 and it held its sitting on 4.2.2009 in an unauthorised manner and any recommendation made by such dissolved Committee is to be treated as non est in the eye of law. Under such circumstances, the recommendation made by the Respondent-Chief Engineer should prevail over the alleged recommendation made by the said dissolved committee. 13. Regarding alleged secret negotiation between the Respondent-Chief Engineer and Respondent No. 6, it is submitted that the recommendation made by the Scrutiny Committee having being found non est, the petitioner can no longer claim that its tender was accepted and recommended for settlement. 13. Regarding alleged secret negotiation between the Respondent-Chief Engineer and Respondent No. 6, it is submitted that the recommendation made by the Scrutiny Committee having being found non est, the petitioner can no longer claim that its tender was accepted and recommended for settlement. The respondent-Chief Engineer, as it could be seen from the recommendation, made the recommendation for Respondent firm because he found that the respondent firm originally quoted Rs. 450.72 lakhs which was escalated due to correction did in the original quoted rate and agreed to execute within the quoted rate, hence, a chance may be given to the firms which will result in saving of Rs. 22.88 lakhs whereas on the other hand awarding of works to M/s. Tama Fabrication will incur an extra amount of Rs. 22.88 lakhs from the Govt. exchequer. From this, according to Mr. Goswami, any reasonable man would be able to understand that the recommendation was made by the respondent-Chief Engineer in public interest and there is no private/individual interest backed by any vested interest or nepotism. Such negotiation for the greater interest of the public cannot be faulted and termed as illegal or unauthorised. Mr. Goswami submits that in the matter of high cost government project on loan from international financial institutions, acceptance of tender by the government in accordance with the specification should not be treated as arbitrary or illegal in absence of exercise of power by the authorities for co-lateral purpose, ulterior motive, favouratism, malice or mala fide and there should not be any interference from the Court with the award of such contract by way of judicial review. In this respect, he cities the case of Asia Foundation and Construction Ltd. v. Trafalgar House (I) Ltd. reported in (1997) 1 SCC 738 . In the said case, according to Mr. Goswami, the Apex Court decried the recalculation and re-fixation made by the tender committee in the rates quoted by the tenderers and also held by the Apex Court that in the matter tender, the lowest bidder may not claim an enforceable right to get the contract though ordinarily the authorities concerned should accept the lowest bid. Goswami, the Apex Court decried the recalculation and re-fixation made by the tender committee in the rates quoted by the tenderers and also held by the Apex Court that in the matter tender, the lowest bidder may not claim an enforceable right to get the contract though ordinarily the authorities concerned should accept the lowest bid. With great force he submits that even when some defect is found in the decision making process, the Court must exercise its discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution with great caution and should exercise in furtherance of public interest and not merely on the making out of a legal point rather to say on a fine legal point. In this regard, he relies on the case of Air India Limited v. Cochin International Airport Limited and Ors. reported in (2000) 2 SCC 617 . The Court is not expected to look into the allegation that the Respondent-Chief Engineer was at Delhi on a particular day and he was not in a position to return to headquarters at Itanagar and attend the office on a particular day before the office hour and he was not in a position to pass and issue the impugned order dated 2.2.2009 cancelling the Scrutiny Committee. Once the order has been shown as being issued, it must be taken as being issued officially and the same has taken effect from the date of issue of the order. The decision in M R Mondal, case (supra) as relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in regard to the effect of non communicated order is not applicable to the present case inasmuch as the aforesaid cited case relates to order of extension of period of the contract which was not communicated officially to the parties concerned. In the present case, it is only an order within the officials of the department, who are members of the Scrutiny Committee regarding cancellation of the said Committee without involving any private parties/individuals. 14. Mr. R.H. Nabam, learned Senior Govt. Advocate has produced file No DUD/PLG-349/08-09 pertaining to NIT for the work" "Improvement of Road Network at Pasighat" maintained by the Department of Urban Development and Housing. He has placed the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the State respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 5. 14. Mr. R.H. Nabam, learned Senior Govt. Advocate has produced file No DUD/PLG-349/08-09 pertaining to NIT for the work" "Improvement of Road Network at Pasighat" maintained by the Department of Urban Development and Housing. He has placed the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the State respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 5. It has been reiterated in para-6 of the affidavit that the 6-member committee constituted vide letter No. DUD/PLG-313/2007-08 dated 11.10.2008 was basically to assist the Chief Engineer-cum-Director to expedite the tender papers submitted by the Deputy Director, Pasighat Division for immediate disposal of works as an internal arrangement. There is, however, as stated in the affidavit, no compulsory rule that calls for constitution of such committee. The aforesaid committee was cancelled vide impugned order dated 2.2.2009 before the commencement of scrutiny of tender papers since the said committee took long time to expedite the assigned work leading to inordinate delay which created public nuisance and pressure. In view of such cancellation of the said committee, the finding of the said committee, which was done subsequent to the cancellation of the committee, does not have any legal force. In the affidavit, it is also further stated that the said committee made some correction in the tender paper of the respondent No. 6 and thereby caused increase in its quoted rate to Rs. 763-91 lakhs which is 54.10% above the estimated cost of the work. It is contended that if any discrepancy is/was found by the committee, it should have been clarified by written confirmation but while making the aforesaid correction, it was not done so by the said committee. 15. Supporting the power and action of the Respondent-Director in cancelling the committee vide impugned order dated 2.2.2009, it is asserted in para 8 of the affidavit that the respondent-authority who constituted the said committee has dissolved/cancelled the same. However, the respondent Nos. 15. Supporting the power and action of the Respondent-Director in cancelling the committee vide impugned order dated 2.2.2009, it is asserted in para 8 of the affidavit that the respondent-authority who constituted the said committee has dissolved/cancelled the same. However, the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 5 have refrained themselves from making any comments in regard to the allegation made in para 7 of the writ petition against the respondent No. 3 that he issued the impugned cancellation order back dated after the said committee scrutinized the bids of the tenderers and recommended in favour of the petitioner firm and it was done with vested interest and to help the respondent No. 6 to get the work order settled with it, as the attorney holder of the respondent firm is related to him. As regard the relationship of the respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 2 with the attorney holder of the respondent firm, it has been explained in para 10 of the said affidavit, the relevant portion of which is quoted below: 10. That with regard to the statement made in para 10 of the writ petition, the humble deponent submits that the State of Arunachal Pradesh is a small State in terms of population and here most people known each other and are related but the business of the Govt. is run based on the established rule and not by seeing the relationship. While appreciating the whole trouble some exercise done by the petitioner to establish the linkage between the family members of the Secretary (UD), Miss Bandhana Deori, the Chief Engineer-cum-Director (UD) and Smti Kernik Ete Moyong, the attorney holder of M/s. T.K. Enterprises, it is to state that the respondent No. 3 Shri T. Basar, the Chief Engineer-cum-Director had tried to save the Govt. fund to the tune of Rs. 22.88 lakhs (approximately) and nothing more... 16. It is submitted by Mr. Nabam, learned Sr. Govt. fund to the tune of Rs. 22.88 lakhs (approximately) and nothing more... 16. It is submitted by Mr. Nabam, learned Sr. Govt. Advocate for the respondent authorities that there is nothing wrong in the interference made by the respondent authorities with the evaluation of bids and recommendation made by the dissolved committee which committed irregularities and illegalities in so far it made unauthorised correction in certain rates of the items in the bid offered by the respondent No. 6 in violation of the tender clauses and awarding the contract with respondent No. 6 after proper evaluation made on the bids of the tenderers which would save public money to the tune of Rs. 22.88 lakhs. The allegations of irregularities, arbitrary and illegal action prompted by vested interest and nepotism against the respondent authorities particularly, respondent No. 3, have no basis and as such, according to Mr. Nabam, the impugned order awarding the contract with respondent No. 6 is not liable to be interfered with or set aside by the Court in exercising its power under judicial review. 17. The respondent No. 3, Shri Toli Basar, Chief Engineer-cum-Director, Department of Urban Development and Housing also filed an affidavit-in-opposition on 13.7.2009. He has denied the allegation of favouritism and nepotism made against him by the petitioner. In para 9 of his affidavit, he has not denied his relationship with attorney holder of respondent No. 6 but he categorically stated that he did not act in favour of the respondent No. 6 due to any relationship but to save the govt. fund to the tune of Rs. 22.8 lakhs (approximately) as well as to protect the govt. from illegal practice conjointly perpetrated by the 6-Member Committee at the behest of the petitioner. He further stated that as per the materials on record, there were originally three firms who qualified for the technical bid and out of these three firms, M/s. Reniya Enterprises was out rightly rejected at Division Level while scrutinising the financial bid as the firm quoted Rs. 368.31 lakhs which was much lower than the minimum amounts floated under NIT. While the tender papers of the remaining two firms i.e. petitioner and the respondent No. 6 were found qualified in technical bids examined by the office of the Deputy Director, UD and Housing, Pasighat Division and forwarded to the office of the Respondent No. 3 for further action. While the tender papers of the remaining two firms i.e. petitioner and the respondent No. 6 were found qualified in technical bids examined by the office of the Deputy Director, UD and Housing, Pasighat Division and forwarded to the office of the Respondent No. 3 for further action. Regarding cancellation of 6-Member Committee, it is stated in para 5 that the said committee was constituted basically to assist the Chief Engineer-cum-Director to examine the tender papers submitted from the Deputy Director, Pasighat Division for immediate disposal of the work as an internal management as the Chief Engineer-cum-Director was also busy in other matters. However, the said committee was cancelled vide order dated 2.2.2009 as the committee "took long time to expedite the assigned work leading to inordinate delay which created public nuisance and pressure." Hence, their findings have no meaning. It is further stated that in any case the rates quoted in the original tender paper have to be assessed without correction to maintain the propriety and sanctity of tender system. The respondent No. 3 assertively stated in para 7 that he reached his office on 2.2.2009 and attended his duties. He denied that the recommendation of the Committee was rejected in an arbitrary or capricious manner. The rejection was done in exercise of due official authority and as such, the recommendation made by the said committee after it was so dissolved, is non est in the eye of law. The reasons for recommending the tender of respondent No. 6 could be found in the latter portion of para 9 which are quoted below: ...Accordingly, as per the findings the rate quoted by the Respondent No. 6 (M/s. T.K. Engineering Enterprises) is found to be the lowest bidder which is 22.88% less than that of the petitioner. Though the Respondent No. 6 (M/s. T. K. Engineering Enterprises) was found to be lowest bidder the Committee constituted vide No. DUD/PLG-313/2007-08 dated 11th October, 2008, while examining the original tender papers of the Respondent No. 6 had re-corrected the tender papers of the Respondent No. 6 (M/s. T.K. Engineering Enterprises) in most illegal manner by putting 763.91 lakhs in place of the original quoted amounts of Rs. 450.72 and thereby raised the financial bid of the Respondent No. 6 to an inflated figure of Rs. 763.91 lakhs which is 54.10% higher than the amount mentioned under the NIT. 450.72 and thereby raised the financial bid of the Respondent No. 6 to an inflated figure of Rs. 763.91 lakhs which is 54.10% higher than the amount mentioned under the NIT. It is pertinent to mention here that it is one of the condition that the tender papers must not be double written and if the same are double written then the same is not acceptable, therefore, initially tender papers of both the petitioner and Respondent No. 6 were found qualified without any double written and the same was duly received and examined at Division Level but the same had been re-corrected, specifically the financial bid, at official level which is not permissible. The propriety and sanctity of tender system shall be defeated if the tender papers are corrected at the official level whereas in case of any lacuna found on the tender papers the proper procedure are to seek clarification from the concerned bidder in written which did not happened in the present case of the Respondent No. 6. In any case, the 6(six) Members Committee constituted vide No. DUD/PLG-313/2007-08, dated 2.2.2009, therefore, the recommendation made by the nonest committee doesn't carry any meaning. Be recommending the Respondent No. 6 (M/s. T.K. Engineering Enterprises) the respondent No. 3 saved Rs. 22.8 lakhs of fund for the state exchequer as the petitioner firm had quoted an amounts of Rs. 473.60 which is 22.88 lakhs higher than the rate quoted by the Respondent No. 6 (Rs. 450.72). 18. Mr. T. Pertin, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 3 submits that the order of cancellation of the Scrutiny Committee is not under challenge in this writ petition. Nor the evaluation made by the respondent No. 3 is also under challenge. It is only the role and conduct of the respondent No. 3, which has been questioned in this writ petition. The role played by the respondent No. 3 cannot be doubted or questioned inasmuch as he has done what was required to be done by him in exercise of his power as the Director of the Department in a fair and reasonable manner in greater public interest, more particularly, to save the public exchequer, as has been stated earlier. The role played by the respondent No. 3 cannot be doubted or questioned inasmuch as he has done what was required to be done by him in exercise of his power as the Director of the Department in a fair and reasonable manner in greater public interest, more particularly, to save the public exchequer, as has been stated earlier. His exercise of power as Director of the Department and re-evaluation of bids of the tenderers has got nothing to do with his relationship with the attorney holder of the respondent No. 6 or with the Respondent-Secretary of the Department. The Respondent No. 3 was compelled to make re-assessment of the bids when he found the members of the Scrutiny Committee made certain corrections in the bid of the respondent firm in an unauthorised and unfair manner to serve some vested interest. The allegations made against the respondent No. 3, according to Mr. Pertin, learned Counsel, are false, fabricated and without any basis and as such, the same do not deserve serious consideration. 19. First of all let me examine the contention of the respondent No. 3, Chief Engineer-cum-Director, Department of Urban Development and Housing that the Scrutiny Committee was cancelled by him as the said committee took long time to expedite the assigned work leading to inordinate delay which created public nuisance and pressure. It is claimed that the said Committee was constituted in compliance to order dated 10.9.2008 issued by the Respondent-Chief Engineer-cum-Director. The tender was floated on 11.9.2008 fixing the date of delivery of the bids on or before 1400 hrs on 4.10.2008 as per the corrigendum issued on 14.9.2008. After scrutiny of the bids, the Deputy Director vide his letter No. UDPD/NIT/W-18/2008-9/413-14 dated 23.1.2009 submitted the scrutiny report of both technical and financial bids along with comparative statement abstract etc. to the Chief Engineer-cum-Director, Urban Development and Housing Department. The Joint Director-cum-SE, UD and Housing Department thereafter issued office order No. DUD/PLG-349/08-09 dated 30.1.2009 constituting the Standing Committee for scrutiny of tender documents with the following members (1) S.K. Dagra, FAO (2) Shri T. Darrang, Deputy Director (HQ) (3) Shri I.K. Singh, UPO (HQ) (4) Shri A.K. Paul, AUPO of the Directorate of UD and Housing. In the said order, the Jt. Director-cum-SE asked all the members to gather his office chamber on 4.2.2009 at 3.00 p.m. positively for scrutiny of tenders. In the said order, the Jt. Director-cum-SE asked all the members to gather his office chamber on 4.2.2009 at 3.00 p.m. positively for scrutiny of tenders. The said office order is found in the office record, which reads: ORDER In compliance of the Chief Engineer-cum-Department of Urban Development and Housing, order No. DUD/PLG-313/2007-08 dated Itanagar, the 11th Sept. 08, the Standing Committee for scrutiny of Tender Documents to be held in the office chamber of Joint Director Urban Development and Housing on 3rd February, 2009 at 3.00 p.m. for its 3rd sitting to scrutinize the tender forwarded by Deputy Director, Pasighat Division for the project "Improvement of Road Network at Pasighat" is hereby constituted under the chairmanship of the undersigned with the following officers and officials as members. 1. Shri S.K. Dagra, FAO, Directorate UD and Housing, Itanagar. Member 2. Shri T. Darang, Dy. Director (HQ), Directorate of UD and Housing Member. 3. Shri I.K. Singh, UPO (HQ), Directorate UD and Housing, Itanagar Member. 4. Shri A.K. Paul, AUPO, Directorate UD and Housing, Itanagar. Member. All the members are requested to gather themselves in the Chamber of the undersigned on 3.2.2009 at 3.00 P.M. positively for scrutiny of above tender in details. Sd-Joint Director-cum-SEUD and Housing, Itanagar. The Joint Director-cum-SE again issued office order No. DUD/PLG-349/08-09/7463-64 dated, Itanagar, 3rd February, 09 asking all the members to gather in his office chamber on 4.2.2009 at 3.00 p.m. positively for scrutiny of tender forwarded by Deputy Director, Pasighat Division for the project "Improvement of Road Network at Pasighat", which reads: ORDER In compliance of the Chief Engineer-cum-Department of Urban Development and Housing, order No. DUD/PLG-313/2007-08 dated Itanagar, the 11th Sept., 08, the Standing Committee for scrutiny of Tender Documents to be held in the office chamber of Joint Director Urban Development and Housing on 4th February, 2009 at 3.00 p.m. for its 3rd sitting to scrutinize the tender forwarded by Deputy Director, Pasighat Division for the project "Improvement of Road Network at Pasighat" is hereby constituted under the chairmanship of the undersigned with the following officers and officials as members 1. Shri S.K. Dagra, FAO, Directorate UD and Housing, Itanagar Member. 2. Shri T. Darang,, Dy. Director (HQ)„ Directorate of UD and Housing, Member. 3. Shri I.K. Singh, UPO (HQ), Directorate UD and Housing, Itanagar Member. 4. Shri K. Ratan, Superintendent, Directorate UD and Housing, Itanagar Member. 5. Shri S.K. Dagra, FAO, Directorate UD and Housing, Itanagar Member. 2. Shri T. Darang,, Dy. Director (HQ)„ Directorate of UD and Housing, Member. 3. Shri I.K. Singh, UPO (HQ), Directorate UD and Housing, Itanagar Member. 4. Shri K. Ratan, Superintendent, Directorate UD and Housing, Itanagar Member. 5. Shri A.K. Paul, AUPO, Directorate UD and Housing, Itanagar Member. All the members are requested to gather themselves in the Chamber of the undersigned on 4.2.2009 at 3.00 p.m. positively for scrutiny of above tender in details. Sd-Joint Director-cum-SEUD and Housing, Itanagar. No. DUD/PLG-349/8-9/7463-64 dated 3rd February, 9. The said order was issued as per the direction of the Chief Engineer-cum-Director. Accordingly, meeting of the scrutiny Committee of scrutiny of tender documents was held on 4.2.2009 at 3.00 p.m. The said Committee thoroughly scrutinized the tender papers. It recommended the rates quoted by M/s. Tama Fabrication Work for appropriate decision of the competent authority. The Joint Director-cum-SE endorsed the relevant file along with the scrutiny report, recommendation etc. to the Govt. for approval through the Chief En-gineer-cum-Director on 12.2.2009. Going by the process taken up by the Scrutiny Committee, I do not find that the said Committee "took long time to expedite the assigned work leading to inordinate delay which created public nuisance and pressure." The Scrutiny Committee is not to blame inasmuch as the meeting of the Committee was held on 4.2.2009 as per the direction of the higher authority namely the Joint Director-cum-SE as it appears from the note dated 3.2.2009 mentioned above. I do not find that the allegation made regarding delay in completing the process and thereby created public nuisance and pressure as alleged by the Respondent No. 3. 20. It is now to examine whether the Scrutiny Committee was cancelled by the Respondent No. 3 vide his order, dated 2.2.2009 and the same was communicated to the members of the said Committee before its sitting held on 4.2.2009. The Joint Director as stated earlier forwarded/endorsed the scrutiny report as well as recommendation of the Committee on 12.2.2009 and on receipt of the same on 23.2.2009, the Respondent-Chief Engineer-cum-Director examined himself and expressed his views/comments with recommendation in favour of the respondent firm on 27.2.2009 and placed the same before the Secretary, UD and Housing. The said views/comments/recommendation of the Respondent-Chief Engineer is available at pages 26 and 27 of the note sheet of file No. DUD/PLG-349/08-09. The said views/comments/recommendation of the Respondent-Chief Engineer is available at pages 26 and 27 of the note sheet of file No. DUD/PLG-349/08-09. A photocopy of the same has been annexed as annexure-F to the writ petition. However, for the sake of convenience and better appreciation, the same is reproduced below: (NSP-26) Refer the office notes as at pre-pages. 90. The Deputy Director, UD and Housing, Pasighat has forwarded the tender documents along with technical and financial evaluation reports separately and financial bids in original. As per the report, it is stated that 11 sets of tender paper were sold out of which 4 (four) firms submitted their Bids. One firm could not technically qualify. The financial bid of the three firms were opened and after scrutiny the financial bid of M/s. Reniya Enterprise quoted Rs. 368.31 lakh which was rejected at Divisional level being abnormally low over the estimated cost put to tender (i.e. 25.69% down). The financial bid of two firms was received in this office for scrutiny and acceptance. As per the report, the 1st lower tenderer is M/s. T. K. Engineering Enterprises who quoted Rs. 450.72 lakhs (9.07% down) and 2nd lowest tendered is M/s. Tama Fabrication Works quoted Rs. 473.72 lakhs (4.40% down) as compared with the estimated cost put to tender. The reference may be seen as at Flag-X/Page 6 of Annexure B). 91. As per the justification of the quoted amounts of both the tenders as submitted by the Deputy Director, UD and H, Pasighat (may refer comparative statement (abstract) at Annexure-'D') the percentage quoted by M/s. T.K. Engineering Enterprise and M/s. Tama Fabrication Works are 1.84% below and 3.145% above the justified amount i.e. Rs. 459.19 lacs respectively. 92. The above mentioned documents were scrutinized by an internal Committee and their findings as stated at Para 81 (table-6) on NSP-23 and 24 shows that the percentage quoted by M/s. T.K. Engineering Enterprises and M/s. Tama Fabrication Works are 54.10% above and 4.40% below the total estimated cost put to tender i.e. Rs. 495.63 lakhs. The change of percentage in case of M/s. T.K. Engineering Enterprise has been effected by the committee by correcting the original quoted rates computation of carriage items in respect of 3(a), 3(b), 4(a) and 4(b) of General Abstract and individually at pages 85/c, 88/c, 90/c and 92/c. 93. 495.63 lakhs. The change of percentage in case of M/s. T.K. Engineering Enterprise has been effected by the committee by correcting the original quoted rates computation of carriage items in respect of 3(a), 3(b), 4(a) and 4(b) of General Abstract and individually at pages 85/c, 88/c, 90/c and 92/c. 93. The Deputy Director, UD and H, Pasighat has recommended M/s. Engineering Enterprise which according to the divisional justification is 9.70% below and 1.84% below the estimated cost put to tender i.e. Rs. 495.63 lakhs and Rs. 459.19 lakhs respectively. Whereas, as per the findings of the committee's justification, the percentage quoted by M/s. T.K. Engineering Enterprises and M/s. Tama Fabrication Works are 54.10% above and 4.40% below the total estimated cost put to tender i.e. Rs. 495.63 lakhs and the internal committee has recommended the case of M/s. Tama Fabrication Works. 94. On perusal of the original financial bids of the two firms as shown at there respective general abstracts Flagged 'A and 'B' (envelop enclosed) the firm i.e. M/s. T.K. Engineering Enterprise and M/s. Tama Fabrication Works have offered to execute the works put to tender at a cost of Rs. 450.72 lakhs and Rs. 473.60 lakhs respectively with a clear difference of Rs. 22.88 lakhs in between them but the amount of M/s. T.K. Engineering Enterprise has been increased to Rs. 763.90 lakhs as per the committee's finding and correction of carriage items as mentioned above by the committee itself. 95. It is pertinent to mention here that the committee's recommendation of M/s. Tama Fabrication Works will incur an additional expenditure of Rs. 22.88 lakhs on same quantity of work above that of amount quoted by M/s. T.K. Engineering Enterprises in its original financial bid notwithstanding the minor discrepancies in its individual entries in item rates. As such the committee's recommendation seems to overlook the financial benefits/saving to the State Govt. exchequer. 96. 22.88 lakhs on same quantity of work above that of amount quoted by M/s. T.K. Engineering Enterprises in its original financial bid notwithstanding the minor discrepancies in its individual entries in item rates. As such the committee's recommendation seems to overlook the financial benefits/saving to the State Govt. exchequer. 96. It may also be mentioned here that the committee constituted vide Order No. DUD/Plg-313/2007-08/3897-99 dated 10th September 2008 for smooth and timely scrutiny of the Tender Papers was cancelled vide No. DUD/Plg-313/2007 = 08/7619-20 dated 2nd February 2009 (copy enclosed at page 110/c) earlier keeping in view of the problems experienced in the case of the Tender for C/o. Houses for Urban Poor/Safai Karmachaires at Papu Nallah, Naharlagun under BSUP which itself is yet to be finalised and lots of pressure is coming from tenderer to undersigned. The committee constituted took ample time and instead of decision making it creates problems in decision making process. 97. Further, in the instant case the internal committee has committed procedural violation as they have tried to compel the authority to accept the committee's recommendation be not keeping provision/option for taking decision be the higher authority, such practice is not appreciable. The committee's purpose was to evaluate the tender and to place the merit and de-merit before the competent authority for further decision, as the committee is simply and internal arrangement and not suppose to compel the authority to accept the committee's recommendation. Moreover, in this particular case, the committee constituted was cancelled on 2nd February 2009 as stated at Para 96 above. 98. Keeping in view the facts as stated above, it is recommended that as M/s. T.K. Engineering Enterprises has originally quoted Rs. 450.72 lakhs which was escalated due to correction did in the original quoted rate and agreed to execute within the quoted rate, hence a chance may be given to the firms which will result in saving of Rs. 22.88 lakhs whereas on the other hand awarding of works to M/s. Tama Fabrication Works will incur an extra amount of Rs. 22.88 lakhs from the Govt. exchequer. 99. In view of above, the matter is submitted to Secretary (UD) for obtaining approval of competent authority for acceptance of the tender of M/s. T.K. Engineering Enterprises please. Sd/- Secretary (UD), Chief Engineer-cum-Director (UD&H) 21. 22.88 lakhs from the Govt. exchequer. 99. In view of above, the matter is submitted to Secretary (UD) for obtaining approval of competent authority for acceptance of the tender of M/s. T.K. Engineering Enterprises please. Sd/- Secretary (UD), Chief Engineer-cum-Director (UD&H) 21. I have carefully gone through the aforesaid recommendation of the respondent No. 3 and I find no reference therein to passing or issuance of the impugned order dated 2.2.2009 cancelling/dissolving the scrutiny committee constituted earlier for the purpose of scrutiny of the tender papers. It must be noted that the aforesaid notes in the note sheet was prepared for placing the same before the Minister concerned of approval through the respondent-secretary of the department. It is not understood why this important aspect of the matter has not been mentioned or referred to therein. If the contention of the respondent No. 3 is taken as correct and true that the scrutiny committee was cancelled by him before 4.2.2009 i.e. before its meeting was held, the report of the said committee should have been rejected by him out rightly without making any further discussion or review on the evaluation of the bids and recommendation of the said committee. From the impugned cancellation order dated 2.2.2009 it appears that the process for cancellation of the committee was initiated in file No. DUD/PLG-313/2007-08. This file has not been produced by the respondent authorities before this Court although clear allegation has been made by the petitioner that the said impugned order was issued back dated as it was not possible on the part of the respondent Director to return from Delhi on 2.9.2008 and pass/issue the same on the same day and the same was shown to have been issued on 2.2.2009 with some vested interest to get the recommendation of the committee cancelled. There is no explanation from the respondent authorities why the aforesaid file has been withheld for scrutiny/perusal of the Court. The non-production of such important file/record cast a doubt on the truthfulness of the statement of the respondent No. 3 that the aforesaid impugned order was passed/issued on 2.2.2009. For cancellation of a validly constituted committee by an earlier official order, there must be some office notings with reasoning and it is not expected that the respondent-Director would pass such an important order without recording the reason in the office note. For cancellation of a validly constituted committee by an earlier official order, there must be some office notings with reasoning and it is not expected that the respondent-Director would pass such an important order without recording the reason in the office note. Such noting is required to be placed along with the relevant file/record for verification by the Court as to whether the stand taken by the respondent No. 3 in his counter affidavit is same and consistent. In absence of such record, the Court is bound to hold that the impugned cancellation order dated 2.2.2009 was not passed as per the accepted official procedure and such order passed hurriedly by the respondent No. 3 after return from Delhi to Guwahati on 2.2.2009 and therefrom reaching Naharlagun by Helicopter just before the end of office hours sounds unusual because such order could have been passed or issued by him steadily on 3.2.2009 inasmuch as the meeting of the scrutiny committee was scheduled to be held only on 4.2.2009 at 3 p.m. There is nothing on record nor any averment in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No. 3 that he, after passing the same impugned order, ever talked to or informed the members of the committee about the cancellation of the committee and asking them not to hold or gather for scrutiny of the tender papers. Under such circumstances, it must be held that the impugned order dated 2.2.2009, in fact, was not passed/issued at all; and even if it was passed/issued, it was passed/issued back dated out of an afterthought, for some purpose other than bona fide. So, the tender committee must be accepted as being in existence till its meeting was held on 4.2.2009 and made the recommendation; and it is in existence till to-day and it must be treated as in existence until it is dissolved by a valid office order. 22. So, the tender committee must be accepted as being in existence till its meeting was held on 4.2.2009 and made the recommendation; and it is in existence till to-day and it must be treated as in existence until it is dissolved by a valid office order. 22. Once it is found that the aforesaid cancellation order was not passed/issued in accordance with the accepted official procedure it would become non est and it cannot be said that the said committee had no authority to scrutinize the bids of the tenders and make its recommendation to the appropriate higher authorities and if the said scrutiny committee have its meeting as per schedule and made recommendation after due scrutiny of the tender papers, the same cannot be brushed aside as unauthorised or non est. In such case the respondent No. 3 has no role to play by way of reviewing the entire scrutiny and recommendation made by the committee as has been done by him to undo the recommendation of the validly constituted committee. 23. From the note sheet of the aforesaid file, it is found that the respondent secretary did not examine and make any comments on the aforesaid recommendation made by the respondent No. 3 and as a matter of routine, she mechanically placed the same before the Minister concerned on 28.2.2009 for his approval and acceptance. The Minister also mechanically approved the same on 28.2.2009. As stated earlier, the official file in which the dissolution/cancellation of the committee was initiated and culminated into issuance of the order has not been produced before this Court. The respondent authorities have failed to prove conclusively that the impugned order was, in fact, issued as per the accepted official norms and procedure. This leads to a conclusion that the alleged cancellation/dissolution of the aforesaid committee is/was an afterthought to fulfill the vested interest on extraneous consideration backed by nepotism, arbitrariness and mala fide intention. The validity and existence of the committee stands survived due to the failure of the respondent authorities in showing their bona fide action in passing/issuing the order of cancellation/dissolution of the committee and it naturally leads to a conclusion that the evaluation and the recommendation made by the said committee to have its force and effect until the same are rejected by the Govt. on the some valid ground in a proper manner. 24. on the some valid ground in a proper manner. 24. What could clearly be noticed in the present case is that the respondent No. 3 has brought himself into the picture to interfere with the evaluation and recommendation of the committee by way of projecting a story that he dissolved the said committee as far back as on 2.2.2009, before the sitting of the committee was held on 3.2.2009 and the said committee being dissolved lost its authority and scrutiny of the bids and recommendation made by it is non est, and thus, he has been compelled to interfere with and make his own evaluation of the bids and make recommendation in favour of the respondent No. 6. As already stated earlier that while recommending the case of the respondent No. 6 by cancelling the recommendation of the committee, he made no reference to the aforesaid impugned order dated 2.2.2009, i.e. cancellation of the committee. Was he not required to constitute a new scrutiny/tender committee in place of the earlier committee for making the scrutiny of the bids and recommending the successful bidder so that the new committee could go into the details afresh and make recommendation in favour of the most responsive and successful tenderer. Propriety demands that the respondent No. 3 should have constituted a new committee but he has taken the entire task of scrutiny of the bids in his own hands and discarded the scrutiny and recommendation of the 6-member committee. No reason has been given by the said respondent why he has chosen not to constitute a new committee although he had the authority to do so and why he has so hurriedly interfered himself with the decision of the 6-member committee. 25. There is no denial of the fact that respondent No. 3 had a post tender negotiation with the respondent firm to the seclusion of the other tenderers. The 6-member tender committee found the petitioner firm as the lowest tenderers and made recommendation in its favour. Even if it is accepted that respondent No. 3 awarded the contract work with the respondent No. 6 to save public money of Rs. The 6-member tender committee found the petitioner firm as the lowest tenderers and made recommendation in its favour. Even if it is accepted that respondent No. 3 awarded the contract work with the respondent No. 6 to save public money of Rs. 22.88 lakhs, the petitioner firm should not have been excluded from the post tender negotiation for it was necessary to know from the petitioner firm whether it was ready to alter its bid/rate to the extent offered by the respondent No. 6 to save the public money and if on being informed and heard, the said petitioner firm was not agreeable, there would have been no point for raising a question on the post tender negotiated settlement of tender with the respondent firm. The affidavits of the respondent authorities as well as the respondent No. 3 are silent about the reason why such process was not adopted before coming to a negotiated settlement with respondent No. 6. A single Bench of this Court in Sangita Advertising, (supra) discussed the law in regard to aforesaid point. In the aforesaid case, it has been held as under: ....The petitioner was also similarly situated person and the participation of the Respondent No. 3 in the negotiating table would have brought a fair competition. The bid offered by the respondent No. 3 was accepted in seclusion, keeping the other competitor at bay. The sole offer of the Respondent No. 3 was accepted by the Respondent No. 2 without assessing the offer by calling upon the other eligible competitor. The participation of the petitioner would have changed the scenario and would have made the drill a meaningful one. The respondent No. 2 in their venture to promote the price bid ought to have explored every avenue for inviting a competitive bid from the eligible contestants. The methodology adopted in this case by confining the negotiation with one person, in such an undertaking is also susceptible to favouritism and partiality. The procedure adopted by the respondent No. 2 in awarding the contract without allowing the petitioner to participate therefore seems to be arbitrary and unfair. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the view that the allotment of the contract with the respondent No. 3 is illegal and accordingly the same is liable to be set aside, which I hereby do... 26. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the view that the allotment of the contract with the respondent No. 3 is illegal and accordingly the same is liable to be set aside, which I hereby do... 26. In the case of Progoty Supply, (supra) cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, a Single Bench of this Court also held that the favour shown to a particular firm for awarding the contract by negotiation privately without offering similar opportunity to the other tenderers, is discriminatory and arbitrary action of the Government. The aforesaid decision is based on the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India and Ors. reported in AIR 1979 SC 1628 and Kasturi Lal Lakhsmi Reddy etc. v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Anr. reported in AIR 1980 SC 1992 . 27. The principle of judicial review in the matter of awarding contract has been enunciated in several decisions of the Supreme Court amongst which, Tata Cellular v. Union of India reported in (1994) 6 SCC 651 is often cited. In the said case, it is held that a judicial review would apply to exercise of contractual powers by the Government bodies in order to prevent arbitrariness or favouritism and the principles laid down in Article 14 of Constitution of India have to be kept in view while accepting or refusing a tender. The established position of law is that the Court would interfere with the decision making process and not the merits of the decision itself and the Court would not sit as an appellate Court while exercising power of judicial review. In the recent case of Jagdish Mondal v. State of Orissa reported in (2007) 14 SCC 517, the Apex Court held that judicial review is permissible only after-(i) the process adopted or decision made is mala fide or intended to favour some one; (ii) the same is so arbitrary or irrational that no responsible authority under law could have arrived at; or (iii) it affected the public interest. 28. 28. In the present case, on perusal of the pleadings of the parties and also the record, it has become clear that the respondent No. 3 as claimed by him, cancelled/dissolved the duly constituted tender committee and indulged in the process of scrutiny of bids and recommendation in favour of the respondent firm without constituting any new tender committee and not only that, the respondent No. 3 has also admittedly entered into a secret negotiation with the respondent firm excluding the petitioner firm and thus, awarded the contract work with the respondent firm. The entire process adopted and the decision taken in awarding the contract with the respondent firm smacks mala fide action intended to favour the respondent No. 6. Such secret negotiated settlement is nothing but an arbitrary and irrational State action without sanction of the accepted procedure and norms. 29. It is no doubt correct that there is no right to enter into a contract or claim by a party to have the contract awarded in its favour but it is entitled to equal treatment from the authorities with other parties who have offered tender. In M/s. Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Ltd. v. State of West Bengal and Anr. reported in (1975) 1 SCC 70 , it is observed that Government is a Government of laws and not of man and held that no right is accrued to enter into a contract but entitled to equal treatment with others who offered tender/quotation for the purchase of goods. In the present case, as discussed earlier, the petitioner firm was not given equal treatment in so far as it was excluded from the post tender negotiation and the authorities concerned have confined the negotiation to the respondent firm alone and accordingly settled the work with it in a preconceived manner. In my considered view, as held by the Apex Court in several cases, including the cases of M/s. Sangita (supra) and Progoty supply (supra), by this Court, the action of the Respondent authorities is arbitrary, irrational and unauthorised and the power of judicial review can be exercised to set aside such arbitrary and irrational decision/action of the respondent authorities. Similarly, I also find that it is absolutely necessary to interfere with such arbitrary and irrational decision of the respondent authorities in the greater public interest. This Court is, therefore, bound to quash and set aside the impugned Govt. Similarly, I also find that it is absolutely necessary to interfere with such arbitrary and irrational decision of the respondent authorities in the greater public interest. This Court is, therefore, bound to quash and set aside the impugned Govt. approval order No. PSG/UDH/W-72/2008-09/191-95 dated 16.3.2009 (Annexure-G to the writ petition) issued by the Deputy Director, Pasighat Division, Department of UD and Housing awarding the contract work "Improvement of Road Network at Pasighat" to Respondent No. 6 as arbitrary, illegal and irrational, accordingly, the same is quashed and set aside. 30. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the dictum of the Apex Court that the writ Court should not sit as an Appellate Court while exercising power of judicial review, I would not deem it fit and proper to pass any direction/order to settle the contract work with the petitioner firm, for, it is beyond the scope of judicial review and the same should be left with the authorities concerned to get the bids of the responsive tenderers on record re-assessed/re-evaluated and recommended, in favour of a deserving party, through the existing tender committee forthwith, preferably within a period of 15 (fifteen) days from the date of passing of this judgment and order to re-assess/reevaluate re-scrutinize the tender papers and make recommendation for settlement of works, to the respondent secretary, who shall after due consideration, pass necessary order keeping in mind the greater public interest involved. Be it made clear that, in case the respondent authorities desire to settle the tender by negotiation, it should be done by associating both the petitioner and the respondent No. 6 as per the law and procedure indicated above. 31. With the aforesaid directions, this petition stands partly allowed and disposed of. No order as to costs. 32. Registry shall furnish a copy of this judgment and order to the Sr. Govt. Advocate, Arunachal Pradesh for onward transmission to Respondent authorities for doing the needful. Writ Petition allowed.