Hrishikesh Roy, J. -- Heard Mr. A. Kashyap, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. The State respondents are represented by Mr. R.H. Nabam, the learned Senior Government Advocate. Mr. S.S. Dey, appears for the private respondents 7 to 10. 2. The matter pertains to the NTT dated 14.12.2012 issued by the Assistant Engineer, Seijosa Water Resources Sub-Division, East Kameng District whereby tenders were invited for the Anti-Erosion and Flood Protection Work for 5 different projects, mentioned in the tender notice. While 29.12.2012 was fixed for last date for receipt of tenders, on 03.01.2013, an Addendum pertaining to the contract was published in the newspaper, whereby Clause 4.2(a) was modified. This Clause relates to the Power of Attorney Holders of the tendering parties and it was stipulated that the Attorney Holder can't execute the works on behalf of principal and can nominally represent the contractor for non-execution purpose. By the Addendum notified on 03.01.2013, the Attorney Holders were not debarred to execute the work, on behalf of the Contractors. Here, it is relevant to record that sub-contracting under Clause 7.1 of the ITB was permitted only to the extent of 20% of the work and accordingly, it was expected that the Contractors will themselves execute, 80% of the work entrusted to them. 3. The writ petitioner was one of the tenderer but they were declared to be technically "non-responsive". Accordingly, they pray for re-evaluation of the technical bid of all the participating tenderers, including the petitioner. 4. Although several grounds were originally pleaded to challenge the tender process, learned Counsel Mr. A. Kashyap submits that as the Tender Evaluation Committee declared the petitioner to be technically "non-responsive" notwithstanding the interim order passed by this Court on 7.1.2013, the petitioner doesn't wish to argue those points and will be satisfied if the technical feasibility of his bid is reconsidered by a higher authority. 5. Mr. R.H. Nabam, the learned Senior Government Advocate submits that technical bids of the tenderers were examined on 4th / 5th January, 2013 but the final decision on the technical bids was taken only on 7th January, 2013 and financial bids were opened on the same date. The Government Counsel further submits that the departmental authorities were unaware of the Court's interim order and that is how, the final decision on technical bids was taken and the financial bids were opened. 6. The Government Counsel further submits that the departmental authorities were unaware of the Court's interim order and that is how, the final decision on technical bids was taken and the financial bids were opened. 6. Since the Addendum notified on 3.1.2013 enabled execution of work by the Attorney Holder of the Contractors, and this Addendum was issued after the time for submission of tender was over on 29.12.2012, the petitioner gave representation on 5.1.2013 to the Chairman of the Tender Evaluation Committee and other officers of the Water Resources Department. On this representation, the Secretary of the Water Resources Department made an endorsement on 7.1.2013 directing the Chief Engineer to examine and report back, before opening the financial bids. 7. Although it is projected by the State Authorities that a reply was given on the same date i.e., 07.01.2013, there appears to be tearing hurry to complete the tender process. This appears so since the Court's interim order was passed on 07.01.2013 and the Secretary sought report from the Chief Engineer on the same day i.e., 07.01.2013. According to the Senior Government Advocate, a reply was given by the Chief Engineer on 7th January itself and only thereafter, the financial bids were opened on the same very day i.e. on 07.01.2013. Thus, too many events conspicuously took place on 7.1.2013 and accordingly the Court feels that the decision making process was deliberately rushed in order to defeat the Courts interim order of 7th January, 2013. 8. Mr. R.H. Nabam submits that the State Authorities are agreeable to have the technical bids of all tenderers re-evaluated by superior authority and since this is also the prayer of the petitioner, I feel that such direction can be given. Mr. S.S. Dey, learned Counsel appearing for the private respondents however, submits that having regard to the roles played by various authorities, the re-evaluation exercise may be carried out through a Committee headed by the Chief Secretary of the State. Mr. Nabam and Mr. Kashyap are agreeable for re-evaluation of the technical bids by a Committee headed by the Chief Secretary. 9. Having noted the consensus of the parties, the responsiveness of the technical bids of the participating tenderers is directed to be re-evaluated through a Committee headed by the Chief Secretary, Arunachal Pradesh. Mr. Nabam and Mr. Kashyap are agreeable for re-evaluation of the technical bids by a Committee headed by the Chief Secretary. 9. Having noted the consensus of the parties, the responsiveness of the technical bids of the participating tenderers is directed to be re-evaluated through a Committee headed by the Chief Secretary, Arunachal Pradesh. Since the Court's interim order has stayed finalization of the tender process and public interest is adversely impacted, the exercise of re-evaluation is directed to be completed within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The Chief Secretary may associate the departmental Secretary and the Chief Engineer during the de-novo process. The Court's interim order will then abide by the decision of the Committee. 10. With the aforesaid direction, the case is disposed of. A copy of this order be furnished to Mr. R.H. Nabam, the learned Senior Government, for necessary communication.