1. Heard Mr. D. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Dr. A. Saraf, learned advocate General for the State of Arunachal Pradesh and Mr. R.B. Yadav, learned counsel for respondent No. 13 in WP(C) No. 36(AP) of 2013. 2. Since the disputes in WP(C) No. 23(AP) 2013 and WP(C) No. 36(AP)/ 2013 originated from nearly same sets of facts and circumstances, I propose to dispose of both the proceedings by this common judgment and order. 3. In WP(C) No. 23(AP)/2013 was initiated for realisation of the following prayers: (a) Appropriate writ in nature of Mandamus or direction should not be issued directing upon the respondents authority, to issue necessary tender documents to the petitioners pertaining to NIT No. SLD/W-22/2012-13/878, dated 8.1.2013, published on 9.1.2013, in the column of Arunachal Front. (b) Appropriate writ or direction should not be issued directing upon the respondent authority to grant such reasonable period of time, as your lordship may deem fit and proper to enable the petitioners to obtain required tender document and submit the same. (c) Appropriate order/direction in the form of stricture should not be passed against the erring officers for dishonouring and non-compliance of the direction and order of this hon’ble High Court. And upon such cause/causes if any being shown and upon hearing the parties, your lordship may be pleased to make the rule absolute and pass such further order and orders and/or direction/directions as your lordship may deem fit and proper. ” 4. On the other hand, the petitioners sought for the following relief’s in WP(C) No. 36(AP) 2013: (i) To set aside and quash the entire tender process convened vide Notice Inviting Tender No. SLD/W-22/2012-13/878 dated 8. 1. 2013 (Annexure P/2); (ii) set aside and quash the (a) Office Order No. SLD/W-22/2012-13/910 dated 18. 1. 2013 issued by the Executive Engineer, PWD, Sagalee Division (Annexure-P/15), (b) Order No. ADC/SGL/JUD-01/2013 dated 21. 1. 2013 issued by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Papum Pare, Sagalee (Annexure P/21) and (c) Office Order contained in No. SLD/W-22/2012-13/925 dated 24. 1. 2013 issued by the Executive Engineer, PWD, Sagalee Division (Annexure P/20; (iii) direct the respondent Nos. 1,2,3,4 and 5 to reconvene afresh the entire tender process of all the 21 groups of works contained in the impugned NIT dated 8. 1. 2013 by issuing fresh Tender Notice in accordance with law. 5. 1. 2013 issued by the Executive Engineer, PWD, Sagalee Division (Annexure P/20; (iii) direct the respondent Nos. 1,2,3,4 and 5 to reconvene afresh the entire tender process of all the 21 groups of works contained in the impugned NIT dated 8. 1. 2013 by issuing fresh Tender Notice in accordance with law. 5. The brief facts necessary for disposal of these proceedings at hand are that the petitioners in the aforesaid proceedings are the registered contractors. A notice inviting tenders notice dated 8. 1. 2013 (in short NIT), issued by the Executive Engineer, PWD, Sagelee Division, A.P. asking bids in respect of as many as 21 works under nine projects with estimated cost of Rs. 9,97,55,264 was published in “The Arunachal Front” on 9.1.2013. 6. It was stated that applications for tender papers would be received by the concerned Assistant Engineer in Division office on 10.1.2013 and 11.1.2013 during the office hours. Assistant Engineer, PWD, Sagalee and Assistant Engineer, PWD, Mengio were the Assistant Engineers who were so authorised to receive the applications for the tender papers and also to issue such papers. 7. It has further ((been stated that. the tender papers for the aforesaid work could be Collected from the concerned Assistant Engineer in Division office on 15.1.2013 to 17.1.2013 during the office hours. As per the terms and conditions of the NIT, the tender papers would be received by the Executive Engineer, Sagelee PWD Division up to 13:00 hrs on 19.3.2013 with further information that bids would be opened same day at 14:00 hrs. 8. In response to the aforesaid NIT, the petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 went to the office of the Assistant Engineer, PWD, Sagalee Division, submitted applications seeking necessary tender papers. The petitioner No. 2 submitted applications in respect of works at SI. Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in the NIT. But he could obtain tender papers only in respect of work at SI. Nos. 2 and 3. 9. On the other hand, the petitioner No. 4 applied for tender papers in respect of as many as 17 packages of work. Out of those 17 packages of work, the petitioner No 4 was provided with tender papers only in respect of work at SI. Nos. 1 and 3 which pertained to Sagalee Sub-Division. Nos. 2 and 3. 9. On the other hand, the petitioner No. 4 applied for tender papers in respect of as many as 17 packages of work. Out of those 17 packages of work, the petitioner No 4 was provided with tender papers only in respect of work at SI. Nos. 1 and 3 which pertained to Sagalee Sub-Division. In respect of remaining 15 packages of work, Assistant Engineer concerned even refused to accept the applications and that too, without assigning any reason, whatsoever. 10. Similarly petitioner M/s. Taskar Construction had applied for one package of work at SF. No. 12 but he too was denied tender papers without assainging any reason, whatsoever, by Assistant Engineer PWD, Sagalee Division. Being aggrieved by such conduct of the respondents, the petitioner preferred an application before the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Sagalee seeking his intervention on the matter. 11. In response to their request, the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Sagalee, forwarded their complaint to the O/C Sagalee to do the needful. But O/C, Sagalee did nothing to address the direction of the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Sagalee or for that matter in addressing the grievances of the petitioners. 12. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid arbitrary conduct on the part of the Assistant Engineer, PWD, Sagalee, O/C, Sagalee, they approached this court by way of filing WP(C) No. 13(AP)/2013. The said petition was disposed of on 16.1.2013 with a direction to the respondent-authorities to furnish required tender papers to the petitioners. 13. A further direction was also given to the Superintendent of Police, Papum pare district to provide adequate force to the petitioners to facilitate them in participating in the tender process, aforesaid. By the same order, this court also directed the respondent-authorities not to open the tender papers for a week starting from 18th January. 14. The order, so passed by this court in WP(C) No. 3/2013, was communicated to all the authorities concerned including the Executive Engineer, Sagalee Division, Assistant Engineer, PWD, Sagalee Sub-Division, as well as Assistant Engineer, PWD, Mengio Sub-Division for their information and necessary action as indicated in the order. On 18.1.2013, the order was duly received by the concerned officers. 15. The order, so passed by this court in WP(C) No. 3/2013, was communicated to all the authorities concerned including the Executive Engineer, Sagalee Division, Assistant Engineer, PWD, Sagalee Sub-Division, as well as Assistant Engineer, PWD, Mengio Sub-Division for their information and necessary action as indicated in the order. On 18.1.2013, the order was duly received by the concerned officers. 15. In compliance with the High Court order, dated 16.1.2013, the Superintendent of Police, Papum pare district, provided escort/security to the petitioners and accordingly, on 18.1.20l3, the petitioners went to the office of the Executive Engineer, Sagalee PWD to submit their applications for obtaining required tender documents against various package of works mentioned in the NIT dated 8.1.2013. 16. But once again showing profound disrespect to the order, passed by the High Court, the Assistant Engineer, Sagalee and Asst. Engineer, Mengio Sub-Division refused to entertain the applications and also denied to furnish the petitioners required tender papers sought for by them. According to the petitioners, being permitted by this court, vide its order dated 16.1.2013, the petitioner No. 1 had sought for bidding documents in respect of work mentioned at SI. Nos. 1, 2, 3, 8,12,13,19, 20 and 21 of the NIT. 17. Similarly, the petitioner No. 2 herein has sought for bidding documents in respect of package of work at SI. No. 2 of NIX On the other hand, the petitioner No 4 has sought for bidding documents in respect of package of work at SI. Nos. 2, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15,16, 17, 18,19, 20, 21 of the NIT whereas the petitioner No. 5 sought for bidding documents in respect of the work specified in SI. Nos. 4 and 5 of the aforesaid NIT. 18. The petitioners, therefore, on 19.1.2013, went to the Executive Engineer, Sagalee Division in order to request the former to furnish them the tender documents, they sought for. However, on arriving at the aforesaid office, they found the offices of the Executive Engineer, Sagalee Division closed. Therefore, despite of their best efforts, they could not collect all the bidding documents from the concerned respondent-authorities till 19.1.2013. 19. However, on arriving at the aforesaid office, they found the offices of the Executive Engineer, Sagalee Division closed. Therefore, despite of their best efforts, they could not collect all the bidding documents from the concerned respondent-authorities till 19.1.2013. 19. Notwithstanding they a being so let down by the respondent-authorities, the petitioners, on 21.1.2013, again went to the office of the Executive Engineer, Sagalee Division with a legal notice wherein it has been stated that in spite of their best efforts the concerned Assistant Engineer refused to give them the bidding documents, against the work they have specified in their applications and once again, they tried to request the respondents vide legal notice dated 21.1.2013 to give them required documents so that they can participate in the tender process. 20. The legal notice has been duly received by the office of the Executive Engineer, PWD, Sagalee. However, when they went to meet the Executive Engineer, PWD, Sagalee on 21.1.2013, the Executive Engineer and concerned Asst. Engineer were not found in the office and did not turn up to their offices and they did so in order to frustrate the order, passed by the High Court on 16.1.2013. 21. It has also been contended that when they were still in the office of the Executive Engineer on 21.1.2013, they were served with an order, purported to have been issued by the Executive Engineer, Sagalee on 18.1.2013 whereby and where-under, it was shown that the tender application in respect of work mentioned in the NIT would be received on 18.1.2013 and 19.1.2013 during the office hours and that tender papers would-be sold from 21.1.2013 to 22.1.2013 during the office hours. 22. But it has been specifically stated by the petitioners that at all the points of time, the petitioners were in the office of the Executive Engineer, Sagalee and Asst. Engineer, Mengio Sub-Division. In spite of their doing the best, they were not able to submit the applications or to obtain the lender documents from the respondent-authorities. In the meantime, Assistant Engineer, PWD, Sagalee and Assistant Engineer PWD, Mengio, has been wrongly communicated to the superior that tenders paper could not be issued on 18th and 19th January since no one approached them. 23. In the meantime, Assistant Engineer, PWD, Sagalee and Assistant Engineer PWD, Mengio, has been wrongly communicated to the superior that tenders paper could not be issued on 18th and 19th January since no one approached them. 23. It has also been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that since value of the work offered through NIT dated 8.1.2013 was more than 10 crores, the respondent-authorities are duty bound to give the prospective bidders minimum 14 days time to enable them to participate in the tenders process as required under section 17.5 CPWD Work Manual 2012. 24. But in the present case, such time limit was not adhered to. Such a violation was intentional since the respondent-authorities wanted to settle the contracts in questions only in favour of certain already selected individuals. However, such a violation too makes the entire tender process illegal. The petitioners, therefore, come up with WP(C) No. 23(AP)/13 seeking the prayer as aforesaid. 25. In the meantime, the petitioners came to know that the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Param Pare, Sagalee had issued gin order dated 21.1.2013 wherein it was held that M/s. Gapang Enterprise and M/s. S.N. Enterprise, the petitioner Nos. 2 and 4 in the writ proceeding aforesaid had misguided this court and got an order, passed in WP(C) No. 13(AP)/ 2013. 26. Therefore, the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Param Pare, Sagalee directed th Executive Engineer, PWD, Sagalee Division to take necessary steps for forbidding those two petitioners from participating in the ongoing tender process initiated by NIT dated 8.1.2013. In pursuance to such direction from ADC, Param Pare, the Executive Engineer, PWD, Sagalee debarred the petitioner Nos. 2 and 4 from participating in the tender process initiated by the NIT dated 8.1.2013 vide his order dated 24.1.2013. 27. Being aggrieved by such order(s), the petitioners have filed WP(C)No. 36(AP)/2013 contending that the Addl. Deputy Commissioner has no authority whatsoever to pass the order dated 21.1.2013 and implementation of such order by the Executive Engineer, PWD Sagalee Sub-Division is equally illegal since such order has been founded on the order passed by the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Sagalee, without any jurisdiction and authority whatsoever. In WP(C) No. 36(AP)/2013, the petitioners, amongst other things, also pray for setting aside the order(s) aforesaid. 28. The State respondents had filed a common counter affidavit in WP(C) No. 23(AP). Deputy Commissioner, Sagalee, without any jurisdiction and authority whatsoever. In WP(C) No. 36(AP)/2013, the petitioners, amongst other things, also pray for setting aside the order(s) aforesaid. 28. The State respondents had filed a common counter affidavit in WP(C) No. 23(AP). In their common counter affidavit, they have stated that the petitioners had founded their case in WP(C) No. 23(AP)/2013 on lies, surmise and conjuncture. In that connection, it has been pointed out that M/s. Gapang Enterprise and M/s. S.N. Enterprise, the petitioner Nos. 2 and 4, respectively, had approached the Executive Engineer, Sagalee in response to NIT dated 8.1.2013 and submitted three applications each seeking the tender papers. 29. According to the respondents, both the petitioner No. 2 and the petitioner No. 4 had applied for tender papers for same packages of work which were mentioned in No. SLD/SSD/SPA (11-12)01, Package No. SLD/SSD/SPA (11-12)03 and Package No. SLD/SSD/SPA (11-12)06. Annexures E, El, E2 and F, Fl, F2 would show that both petitioner Nos. 2 and 4 applied for same packages of work-argued the respondents. 30. More importantly, they were given tender papers which were duly acknowledged by them and Annexures G and H to the counter affidavit would make it clear. However, these very vital information was withheld by the petitioner Nos. , 1, 2, 3 and 4 when they approached this court by way of filling WP(C) No. 13/2013 seeking relief’s, claimed therein. 31. The State respondents further contend that the petitioners also did not give accurate information in petition in WP(C) No. 23/2013 in respect of the packages of work for which they applied for tender papers. The information, they had furnished in their petition, aforesaid, did not tally with the information, so emerged from Annexures E, El, E2 and F, Fl, F2, attached to the counter affidavit. 32. These speak more and more that the petitioners are not interested in telling the truth even when they approached this court with WP(C) No. 23/2013 and they in their cumulative effect, very firmly demonstrate that the petitioners never came to the court with clean hands. Since the petitioners never approached this court with clean hands, they are not entitled to claim any relief, as mentioned in the writ proceeding, numbered as WP(C) No. 23/2013. 33. Since the petitioners never approached this court with clean hands, they are not entitled to claim any relief, as mentioned in the writ proceeding, numbered as WP(C) No. 23/2013. 33. In order fortify the above contention, advanced from the side of Advocate General, my attention has been drawn to the decision, rendered by hon’ble Supreme Court in the Case of Udyami Evam Khadi Gramodyog Welfare Sanstha and Another v. State of U. P. and Others, (2008) 1 SCC 560 . The relevant part is reproduced below: “A writ remedy is an equitable one. A person approaching a superior court must come with a pair of clean hands. It not only should not suppress any material fact, but also should not take recourse to the legal proceedings over and over again which amounts to abuse of the process of law. In Advocate General, State of Bihar v. M/s. Madhya Pradesh Khair Industries and Another [1980] 3 SCC 311, this court was of the opinion that such a repeated filing of writ petitions amounts to criminal contempt. ” 34. Continuing his argument, more and more, the learned Advocate General further contends that since the petitioners suppressed some very vital information in preferring WP(C) No. 13/2013 and since on suppressing those information, they obtained an order which this court would not have possibly passed had it been posted with all the information available with the petitioners at that point of time:, the petitioners had committed fraud on the court as ‘well. 35. According to learned Advocate General, this ground along is sufficient enough to reject the proceedings in hand. In that connection, learned Advocate General has referred me to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of KD. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Ors., (2008) 12 SCC 481. The relevant of the judgment is reproduced below: “It is well settled that “fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal” proclaimed Chief Justice Edward Coke of England before about three centuries. Reference was made by the counsel to a leading decision of this court in S.P. Chengatvaraya Naidu (Dead) by Lrs. v. Jagannath (Dead) by Lrs. and Ors., (1994) 1 SCC 1 wherein quoting the above observations, this court held that a judgment/ decree obtained by fraud has to be treated as a nullity by every court. Reference was made by the counsel to a leading decision of this court in S.P. Chengatvaraya Naidu (Dead) by Lrs. v. Jagannath (Dead) by Lrs. and Ors., (1994) 1 SCC 1 wherein quoting the above observations, this court held that a judgment/ decree obtained by fraud has to be treated as a nullity by every court. Reference was also made to a recent decision of this court in A.V. Papayya Sastry and Ors. v. Govt. of A.P. and Ors., (2007) 4 SCC 221 . Considering English and Indian cases, one of us (C.K. Thakker, J) stated. It is, thus, settled proposition of law that a judgment, decree or order obtained by playing, fraud on the court, Tribunal or Authority is a nullity and non est in the eye of law. Such a judgment, decree or order by the first court or by the final court,- has to be treated as nullity by every court, superior or inferior, it can be challenged in any court, at any time, in appeal, revision, writ or even in collateral proceedings”. 36. Still continuing their case, the State respondents pointed out that in order to conduct the tender process smoothly, the Executive Engineer, PWD, Sagalee arranged the deployment of Magistrate and Police personnel at the main gate in the Division office during office hours on 10th and 11th January, 2013. While everything was going on smoothly, the petitioners without there being any hiccup from any quarter, any point of time whatsoever, had filed WP(C) No. 13(AP)/2013. 37. What is however, important to note is that as stated above, the petitioners preferred such petition on some imaginary and false allegations and on misleading the court, they got an order, passed, for providing them police security to facilitate their participation in the tender process, initiated under NIT dated 8.1.2013 and also obtained an order restraining the respondents from opening the tender docs till one week from 18th January, 2013. 38. In compliance with the aforesaid order, the respondent-authorities, although not under any obligation to do so, had rescheduled the tender process as shown in the chart below: Date & time of receipt of , application Date & time of Sell of Tender paper Authority to receive and sell of Tender papers Venue 8.1.2013 and 19. 1.2013 9. 30 a. m. to 4.30p. m. 21.1.2013 and 22.1.2013 9.30 a.m. to 4.30p. m. Assistant Engineer, Mengio Sub-Division. 1.2013 9. 30 a. m. to 4.30p. m. 21.1.2013 and 22.1.2013 9.30 a.m. to 4.30p. m. Assistant Engineer, Mengio Sub-Division. Assistant Engineer, Sagalee Sub-Division Office of executive, Sagalee PWD Division 39. On 19.1.2013, in the evening, the Assistant Engineer, Mangio Sub-Division and Assistant Engineer, Sagalee Sub-Division PWD submitted their reports to their superior officers intimating that no application from any agency/contractor seeking tender papers were received by the office on 18.1.2013 and 19.1.2013 during the office hours vide Annexure M and Annexure N attached to the counter affidavit. 40. As stated above, the revised arrangement was done in pursuance to order of the court, passed on 16.1.2013 passed in WP(C) No. 13(AP)/ 2013. Instead of taking opportunity of revised Schedule, aforesaid, the petitioners had come up with another application which was registered as WP(C) No. 23(AP)/2013 seeking direction as aforesaid. 41. They went on lo claim that at no point of time, the petitioner Nos. 1, 3 and 5 had approached the respondents seeking tender papers in the terms of the NIT Dated 8.1.2013, floated on 9.1.2013. Situations being such, there cannot be any question of providing them with tender papers. This also demonstrates the hollowness of the case of the petitioners-contend the State respondents. 42. In that connection, it has also been pointed out that in response to NIT dated 8.1.2013, as many as 98 applications were received by the respondents seeking tender papers. After a scrutiny of the applications, 97 tender papers were issued to the intending contractors during the period between 15.1.2013 to 17.1.2013. Submission of such a large number of applications itself is a clear proof of entire tender process, being questioned here, being free and fair. 43. Arguing that the petitioners in coming to the court again and again, and that too, on some false and frivolous contentions, the petitioners has done enough damage not only to the process initiated under NIT dated 8.1.2013 but also encroached upon the precious time and space at the disposal of this hon’ble Court. Such conduct, on the part of the petitioners, need, to be viewed with the seriousness it deserves. 44. In that connection learned Advocate General has referred me to the decision of hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in Advocate General, State of Bihar v. M/s. Madhya Pradesh Khati Industries & Anr., (1980) 3 SCC 311 . Such conduct, on the part of the petitioners, need, to be viewed with the seriousness it deserves. 44. In that connection learned Advocate General has referred me to the decision of hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in Advocate General, State of Bihar v. M/s. Madhya Pradesh Khati Industries & Anr., (1980) 3 SCC 311 . The relevant part is reproduced below: “Before we consider the merits of the appeal we may mention here that the learned Single Judge who made the several orders in favour of the respondents was himself compelled in a later order dated 13th August, 1973 to state that the respondents had suppressed materia/facts and misled him on various occasions and obtained orders from him. Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act defines Criminal contempt as follows: “(c) ‘Criminal Contempt’ means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or any signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise) of any matter or the. doing of any other act whatsoever which (i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of any court; or (ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or (iii) Interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner”. While we are conscious that every abuse of the process of the court may not necessarily amount to Contempt of Court, abuse of the process of the court calculated to hamper the due course of a judicial proceeding or the orderly administration of justice, we must say, is a contempt of court. It may be that certain minor abuses of the process of the court maybe suitably dealt with as between the parties, by striking out pleadings under the provisions of order 6, rule 16 or in some other manner. But, on the other hand, it may be necessary to punish as a contempt, a course of conduct which abuses and makes a mockery of the judicial process and which thus extends its pernicious influence beyond the parties to the action and affects the interest of the public in the administration of justice. But, on the other hand, it may be necessary to punish as a contempt, a course of conduct which abuses and makes a mockery of the judicial process and which thus extends its pernicious influence beyond the parties to the action and affects the interest of the public in the administration of justice. The public have an interest, an abiding and a real interest, and a vital stake in the effective and orderly administration of justice, because, unless justice is so administered, there is the peril of all rights and liberties perishing. The court has the duty of protecting the interest of the public in the due administration of justice and, so/it is entrusted with the power to commit for Contempt of Court, not in order to protect the dignity of the court against insult or injury as the expression “Contempt of Court” may seem to suggest, but, to protect and to vindicate the right of the public that the administration of justice shall not be prevented, prejudiced, obstructed or interfered with. “It is a mode of vindicating the majesty of law, in its active manifestation against obstruction and outrage”. (1) “The law should not be seen to sit by limply, while those who defy it go free, and those who seek its protection lose hope”. 45. Somewhat similar view was rendered by hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Telephone Cables Ltd., (2020) 5 SCC 233. The relevant part is reproduced below: “Public undertakings to avoid being accused of mala fides, bias or arbitrariness spend most of their time and energy in covering their back rather than in achieving development and progress. When courts grant stay, the entire projects or business ventures stand still or get delayed. Even if ultimately the stay is vacated and the complaint is rejected as false, the damage is done as there is enormous loss to the public undertaking in terms of time and increase in costs. The private sector is not open to such scrutiny by courts. When the public sector is tied down by litigations and controls, the private sector quietly steals a march, many a time at the cost of the public sector. We are not advocating less of judicial review. We are only pointing out that if the public sector has to survive and thrive, they should be provided a level playing field. When the public sector is tied down by litigations and controls, the private sector quietly steals a march, many a time at the cost of the public sector. We are not advocating less of judicial review. We are only pointing out that if the public sector has to survive and thrive, they should be provided a level playing field. How and when and by whom is the question for which answers have to be found.” 46. The learned Advocate General also submits that whenever some projects of the public importance gets delayed due to stay order, obtained at the behest of some unscrupulous persons, the persons, responsible for such delay which occasions overrunning of the cost of the project, apart from causing some other incidental difficulties, are to be asked to share the difficulties. 47. In that connection, my attention has been drawn to the decision the hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raunaq International Ltd. v. I.V.R Construction Ltd. and Anr., (1999) 1 SCC 492 . The relevant part of the judgment is reproduced below: Dealing with interim orders, this court observed in Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Chandan Nagar, West Bengal v. Dunlop India Ltd. and Ors., (1985) 2 SCR 190 at page 196 that an interim order should not be granted without considering balance of convenience, the public interest involved and the financial impact of an interim order. Similarly, in Ramniklal N. Bhutto and Am. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., (1997) 1 SCC 134 , the court said that while granting a Stay the court should arrive at a proper balancing of competing interests and grant a Stay only when there is an overwhelming public interest in granting it, as against the public detriment which may be caused by granting a Stay. Therefore, in granting an Injunction or Stay order against the award of a contract by the Government or a Government agency, the court has to satisfy itself that the public interest in holding up the project far out-weighs the public interest in carrying it out within a reasonable time. The court must also take into account the cost involved in staying the project and whether the public-would stand to benefit by incurring such cost. The court must also take into account the cost involved in staying the project and whether the public-would stand to benefit by incurring such cost. Therefore, when such a Stay order is obtained at the instance of a private party or even at the instance of a body litigating in public interest, any interim order which stops the project from proceeding further, must provide for the reimbursement of costs to the public in case ultimately the litigation started by such an individual or body fails. The public must be compensated both for the delay in implementation of the project and the cost escalation resulting from such delay. Unless an adequate provision is made for this in the interim order, the interim order may prove counterproductive. 48. For the aforesaid reasons, learned Advocate General submits this court to dismiss all the proceedings imposing exemplary cost on the petitioners. Seeking dismissal of the proceeding bearing No. WP(C) No. 36(AP)/2013, the learned counsel for respondent No. 13 too adopted the argument, advanced by learned Advocate General. 49. In reply to arguments, advanced by learned Advocate General, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that a party can be punished only when he approached the court suppressing materials facts and materials facts only. In the proceeding, bearing No. WP(C) No. 13(AP)/2013, the petitioners therein cannot be said to have suppressed any materials facts. Being so, the petitions, under consideration, cannot be dismissed, as prayed for by learned Advocate General. 50. Above being that claims and counter claims of the parties, let me see whose claim stands to reasons in view of the facts on records. On the perusal of the pleadings of the parties, I have found that the claim of the respondents that in response to the NIT dated 8.1.2013, published in Arunachal Front on 9.1.2013, petitioner No. 2 and petitioner No. 4 approached the -respondents, submitted applications seeking tender papers in respect of various packages of work, mentioned therein and obtained some tender papers stand confirmed in view of statements, made in Annexures E, E-l, E-2 and Annexures F, F-l, F-2 to the counter affidavit. 51. Further, the claim of the respondents that on obtaining the tender papers, the petitioner Nos. 2 and 4 had duly acknowledged the receipt of those tender papers has also been affirmed by Annexure G and H to the counter affidavit. 51. Further, the claim of the respondents that on obtaining the tender papers, the petitioner Nos. 2 and 4 had duly acknowledged the receipt of those tender papers has also been affirmed by Annexure G and H to the counter affidavit. These aspects were, however, not disputed by the petitioners. It is also found evident that the petitioner No. 5 were nowhere in the picture when petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 approached this court by the way of filing WP(C) No. 13/2013 seeking relief’s, claimed therein. 52. On perusal of the matter, more and more, I have also found that in WP(C) No. 13/2013, the petitioner Nos. 2 and 4 did not utter a single word about their submitting applications seeking tender papers oilmen obtaining some of the tender papers against their requisitions from the concerned respondents or their acknowledging the receipt of such tender papers. Thus, it is quite apparent that when the petitioner Nos. 1,; 2, 3 and 4 first approached this court by the way of WP(C) No. 13/2013, they did not lay before this court all the facts necessary for taking appropriate decision on the matter under scrutiny. 53. What is equally important to note is that withholding those very vital information, the petitioners somehow managed to make out to the court that the respondents most illegally deprived them from getting all the tender papers, they had sought for. Such a conduct on the part of petitioners is blameworthy since they were expected to place before the court, particularly writ court, all the facts at their disposal without bothering to the consequences flowing from such disclosures ‘leaving everything to the court for its decision on those disclosures. 54. As the petitioners did act in the way, as indicated above, if left an indelible undeletable impression on the court that the petitioners did not approach this court with clean hands. These revelations also demonstrate devastatingly that the petitioners got the Order passed in their favour on suppressing some very vital facts. Such conduct on the part of the petitioners, in my firm opinion, would continue to cloud their claims in the present proceedings as well. 55. These revelations also demonstrate devastatingly that the petitioners got the Order passed in their favour on suppressing some very vital facts. Such conduct on the part of the petitioners, in my firm opinion, would continue to cloud their claims in the present proceedings as well. 55. Here, it is worth noting that in their counter affidavit at paragraph No. 8, the respondents categorically state that the petitioner No. 5 never/ever applied for the tender papers in pursuance to NIT dated 8.1.2013 and as such, there is no question of supplying it with tender papers. This assertion was not denied by the. petitioners. It, in turn, requires the court to conclude that the claim, made by respondents in paragraph No. 8, has a huge ring of truth. 56. But then, in the present proceedings, the petitioner No. 5 too joined his hands with the petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 to show that as if he was one who too was denied by the respondent-authorities from getting the tender papers when he approached them which is, however, found far from the truth. This dubious conduct on the part of the petitioner No. 5 instead of strengthening the cause of the petitioners comes heavily on the way of their getting any relief’s from the writ court since the conduct on the part of the petitioner No. 5 bound to make the hands of other petitioners more and more mired. 57. I may note here that by the order dated 16.1.2013, this court tried to protect the petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 from the alleged illegal conduct of the ‘respondents. It also tried to ensure that petitioners must get the tender papers for the packages of work which they allegedly sought for on 10.1.2013 and 11.1.2013. But I have found that in the present proceedings, more and more persons were arraigned as petitioners who aspired for more and more packages of work. 58. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, these only show that petitioners are quite opportunist and trailblazer and they had no qualm, whatsoever/in trying to take full advantage of an order, passed by this court without being fully posted with complete information in regard to the matter under consideration. 58. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, these only show that petitioners are quite opportunist and trailblazer and they had no qualm, whatsoever/in trying to take full advantage of an order, passed by this court without being fully posted with complete information in regard to the matter under consideration. Unfortunately, the above too does not auger well to advance the claim of the petitioners in the present proceeding that they were true victims of high-handedness of the State and its instrumentalities who genuinely need the protection from this Constitutional Court. 59. Another factor that has caught my attention was that the respondents categorically claim that they made arrangement for deployment of the Police as well as Magistrate to ensure the free and fair participation of all genuine bidders. I have also found that a large number of the bidders took part in the tender process in question and they together vied for all projects on offer, total number of the such applications being as huge as 98. Annexures D, Dl, D2, D3 and D4 to the counter affidavit make it clear. 60. When those revelations are considered together, it would appear that the allegations that the respondents, with the help of their ca-hoots did everything possible to prevent the petitioners from getting tender papers so as to ensure the participation of only few blue eyed boys of the department in the tender process under scrutiny and consequently to settle the contracts on offer, in their favour, cannot be accepted without a large grain of salt. These revelations, again, to a great extent weaken the claims of the petitioners in the present proceedings too. 61. One more thing that needs discussion, here, is that as stated above, a large number of bidders participated in the tender process in question. They are admittedly not the parties before this court in any of the proceedings under consideration. As this court refused to pass any interim order staying the ongoing tender process, the tender process must have covered a considerable ground by, now. 62. These speak loud and clear that unless an extraordinary case is made out, the relief, sought for in the proceedings under consideration, cannot be granted since such an order would put a good number of players in the field to huge disadvantageous situations, and that too, without affording them an opportunity of being heard. 62. These speak loud and clear that unless an extraordinary case is made out, the relief, sought for in the proceedings under consideration, cannot be granted since such an order would put a good number of players in the field to huge disadvantageous situations, and that too, without affording them an opportunity of being heard. Unfortunately, the materials on record, instead of making out an extraordinary case in favour of the petitioners, show the hands of the petitioners too mired to get any relief, whatsoever, from this writ court. 63. In the face of above discussion, I am constrained to hold that in approaching this court at the first instant, the petitioners did not come with clean hands. Equally importantly, in view of their our foregoing discussion, I am forced to conclude that the claim of the petitioners that the respondent-authorities had done everything possible to get them out of the tender process in question remains equally doubtful. 64. Consequently, on following the decisions, rendered in the case of K.D. Sharma (supra), I am to hold that the petitioners could not clearly establish that they are genuine victims of high-handedness of state and state instrumentalities who need protection from this constitutional court. 65. On yet another ground, the proceeding with number WP(C) No. 23/ 2013 is found not maintainable. I have found that in pursuance to the order of this court, passed on 16.1.2013, the tender process, initiated by NIT dated 8.1.2013, were re-scheduled and 18.1.2013 and 19.1.2013 were fixed for submitting application for taking tender papers. The petitioners claim that they had been to the, concerned Executive Engineer on 18.1.2013, 66. But they did not find the officers entrusted with the duty to receive applications as well as to sell tender papers, were not in the office for which they could not collect the tender papers. If that be the position, they ought to have come to the court to inform the same without wasting a single moment. Unfortunately, they did not come to the court till 23.1.2013. These/lapses, in my considered view, had serious bearing on the prayer made by the petitioners in the present proceeding. 67. In this context, we can profitably peruse the order passed by this court on 13.1.2013 in the same proceeding refusing to grant an interim relief restraining respondents from proceeding with the tender process under scrutiny. These/lapses, in my considered view, had serious bearing on the prayer made by the petitioners in the present proceeding. 67. In this context, we can profitably peruse the order passed by this court on 13.1.2013 in the same proceeding refusing to grant an interim relief restraining respondents from proceeding with the tender process under scrutiny. The relevant part of the order dated 23.1.2013 is quoted below: “. . . . . . . . . . Since the authorities concerned refused to accept the applications for supply of the bid documents, they have been deprived of the chance of participation in the tender process and they are now before this court with a prayer for supply of the required tender documents with an interim direction to the respondents not to open the tender documents on 24.1.2013 (tomorrow) until the petitioners are supplied with the bid documents and allowed to submit their tender papers. Mr. Nabam, learned senior Govt. Advocate submits that the petitioners obtained certified copy of the order dated 16.1.2013 passed in WP(C) No. 13(AP)/2013 on the same day i.e., 16.1.2013 and they could have approached the authorities concerned on 17.1.2013 but they preferred to submit the same only on 18.1.2013 arid if the authorities concerned have refused to receive even the application oh 18.1.2013, they could have filed and moved the writ petition on 21.1.2013 for their own interest but they have filed the present writ petition only today, i.e., 23.1.2013, although they are aware that the tender papers would be opened on 24.1.2013 (tomorrow). Mr. Nabam, learned senior Govt. Advocate also submits that in the earlier writ petition the petitioners mentioned about certain packages in which they intended to submit tender papers. But in the present writ petition they have come up with other packages which were not intended earlier. The present writ petitioners stated the manner in which they proceeded to obtain the bid documents and how the authorities concerned allegedly refused to entertain their petitions and supply the bid documents in paragraphs 5, 6, 7 and 8, which are stated to be matters of record, in the accompanying affidavit sworn by the petitioners. But no such records or documents substantiating the contentions, of the petitioners have been furnished and it appears that the assertions made by the petitioners that the respondent-authorities refused to supply the bid documents without any reason, has no foundation. But no such records or documents substantiating the contentions, of the petitioners have been furnished and it appears that the assertions made by the petitioners that the respondent-authorities refused to supply the bid documents without any reason, has no foundation. Moreover, the petitioners have impleaded the officers by name. In my considered view, no order, even an interim order, could be passed without providing an opportunity of hearing to those respondents. There is no denial of the fact that the petitioners have approached this court at the eleventh hour without availing the earliest chance of filing the writ petition on 21.1.2013 and in my considered view, interim relief for postponing the opening of the tender paper cannot be granted. ” 68. The observations, made in the aforesaid order, hold good for taking a final decision on the matter under consideration. In my considered opinion, inability of the petitioners to approach this court promptly had greatly hampered their right to have any relief sought for in this proceeding. Having come to the court late, they, now, deprive themselves from getting any relief from this court. 69. Insofar as the relief’s, sought for in WP(C) No. 36 (AP)/2013 is concerned, I have found that the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Param Pare, Sagalee was not the appropriate authority to initiate action on the offending conduct on the part of the petitioners, allegedly for their misleading the court requiring it to pass the order dated 16.1.2013 in WP(C) No. 13 (AP)/2013. 70. The proper authority for initiating the appropriate action for alleged illegal conduct on the part of the petitioners, particularly for the conduct of the petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 are the High Court itself and none others. Therefore, by passing the order directing the Executive Engineer, PWD, Sagalee to debar the petitioner No. 2 and 4 from participating in the tender process under consideration, the ADC, Param Pare, Sagalee had acted beyond his authority. 71. Similarly, the Executive Engineer on issuing the order in compliance of order passed by ADC, Param Pare, Sagalee debarring the petitioner Nos. 2 and 4 from participating in the ongoing process committed an irregularity of equal proportion. Those orders, therefore, cannot be allow sustain. 72. 71. Similarly, the Executive Engineer on issuing the order in compliance of order passed by ADC, Param Pare, Sagalee debarring the petitioner Nos. 2 and 4 from participating in the ongoing process committed an irregularity of equal proportion. Those orders, therefore, cannot be allow sustain. 72. Here, it may be mentioned that learned Advocate General appearing for the state respondents has urged this court to impose exemplary cost on the petitioners following the decisions, he referred to, in support of his such contention, the relevant parts of which I have reproduced herein before. However, on considering the matter in their entirety, I am of the opinion that no cost needs to be imposed on the petitioners as prayed for by the learned Advocate General. 73. Consequently, the order, passed by the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Param Pare, Sagalee on 21.1.2013 and the order, passed by the Executive Engineer, PWS Sagalee on 24.1.2013, being illegal, are set aside. But other relief’s, so claimed in WP(C) No. 36(AP)/2013 are rejected in view of discussions rendered in connection with WP(C) No. 23(AP)/20l3. 74. In the result, the writ proceeding bearing WP(C) No. 23(AP)/2013 is dismissed while the writ proceeding bearing WP(C) No. 36(AP)/2013 is partly allowed as indicated ‘above. No cost.