1. The brief facts of the case is that the Executive Engineer, Ziro Division, Arunachal Pradesh Public Works Department, Ziro, the respondent No. 4, on 20.9.2013 issued Invitation for Bids (IFB) on behalf of the Government of Arunachal Pradesh from the registered and eligible contractors or semi Government organization/State Government undertaking etc. having experience in civil construction works for the work, namely 'Construction of Road from Pai Gate to Club Road i/c. 1C Hill Top road in District Head Quarter, Ziro (SH-WBM-I, C.C. Pavement, C.C. Drain with Slab Coverage and Slab Culvert 1 mtr. Span) Ph :F being Bid No. ZD/ZSD/2013-14/01 for an estimated cost of work of Rs.821.86 lakh. 2. It is pertinent to mention herein that prior to this for the same work at the same estimated cost of work of Rs.821.86 lakh, the respondent No. 4 issued an IFB, on 9.7.2013, wherein the present petitioner, the respondent No. 5 and others participated. But the same was cancelled as the bids of the participants were found to be technically defective and the petitioner's representation was rejected. But no participants/ bidders challenged the said decision of the Departmental Respondents. 3. The petitioner herein, M/s. Samco Construction Company, Itanagar being eligible participated in the said bid proceeding by submitting tender for both Part-I, the Technical Bid and Part-n, the Financial Bid along with other Tenderers, depositing an Bid Security/Earnest Money amounting to Rs. 16.50 lakhs in the form of the Fix Deposit in favour of the respondent No. 4, 4. For the said construction work, the petitioner along with the respondent No. 5, M/s. Gepong, Naharlagun and another namely, M/s. Puna Hinda, Itanagar, respectively were declared qualified in their Technical Bid. Similarly for the said work, in the Financial Bid, the Bid Price of Rs. 6,45,16,503.63 quoted by the respondent No. 5 was declared as the lowest bidder (LI) and the Bid Price of Rs.7,35,74,854.61 quoted by the petitioner was declared to be the second lowest bidder (L2). 5. The petitioner stated that as the quoted Bid price of Rs. Similarly for the said work, in the Financial Bid, the Bid Price of Rs. 6,45,16,503.63 quoted by the respondent No. 5 was declared as the lowest bidder (LI) and the Bid Price of Rs.7,35,74,854.61 quoted by the petitioner was declared to be the second lowest bidder (L2). 5. The petitioner stated that as the quoted Bid price of Rs. 6,45,16,503.63 of the respondent No. 5 (LI) for the said work was unrealistically low to that quoted by the Petitioner amounting to Rs.7,35,74,854.61, he was expecting that the price quoted by the respondent No. 5 would be declared as non-responsive in terms of clause 29.6 of the conditions envisaged in the Instruction to the Bidder (ITB, in short), and the petitioner would be awarded the contract in terms of clause 31.1(II) of the said ITB. As such he approached the respondent No. 4, the Executive Engineer PWD, Ziito Division; to award him the contract by filing a representation dated 1.9.2014 before the respondent No. 2, the Chief Engineer, Central Zone (CZ), PWD, Itanagar and it was duly received by the authority concerned on 2.9.2014. 6. The petitioner further stated that although the quoted Bid price of the respondent No. 5 being unrealistically low, the State respondents, instead of rejecting the same; on the other hand accepted the same allowing with a condition to deposit the unbalanced Bid amount of Rs. 1,76,69,688.37 in the form of an fixed deposit in favour of the Executive Engineer, Ziro and performance security deposit of 5% of the tender amount being Rs.32,25,825. 7. On corning to know, about the aforesaid actions of the State respondents negotiating with the respondent No. 5 for the aforesaid work, the petitioner filed a representation on 1.9.2014 before the respondent No. 2, the Chief Engineer, Central Zone, PWD, Arunachal Pradesh highlighting his grievances staring that respondent No.S's quoted Bid price is extremely low, which is 21.5% below the evaluated estimated cost. In the said representation petitioner also stated that as the respondent No. 5 did not comply with the condition offered by the official Respondents, the Executive Engineer, PWD, Ziro Division, the respondent No. 4, by his letter dated 19.8.2014 wrote to the Superintendent Engineer, Yachuli Civil Circle, PWD, the respondent No. 3 requesting him to take up the matter for cancellation of the conditional acceptance as per the provisions of CPWD Works Manual. By the said representation, the petitioner requested before the authority to award him the contract work by invoking the clause 31.1(ii) of the Instruction to the Bidders (ITB) by accepting his quoted price being the second lowest in the Financial Bid and keeping it in mind that it is the 2nd IFB for the same construction work. The petitioner further submitted that his said representation was received by the concerned authority on 2.9.2014. 8. The petitioner stated, without disposing of his afore said representation by the authority concerned, the Executive Engineer, PWD, Ziro Division on 2.9.2014 issued another Invitation for Bids for the same construction work for the third time, published on 4.9.2014, where the last date for sale of tender paper was fixed as 12.9.2014, the date of opening of tender was fixed at 1500 hours on 15.9.2014. Petitioner also stated that by a corrigendum published on 6.9.2014, the Executive Engineer, PWD, Ziro Division re-Scheduled the said dates of the aforesaid IFB wherein, the date of issue and sale of Bidding document have been fixed from 10.9.2014 to 15.9.2014, the last date of submission of Bid documents have been fixed up to 11.30 Hrs. of 18.9.2014 and the date and time of opening technical Bid has been fixed as 1500 hrs. on 18.9.2014. 9. Being aggrieved with such action of the State respondents, the petitioner has filed this writ petition on the ground that he is deprived of his legitimate claim and that said action of the respondents is arbitrary and, therefore, prayed for quashing the IFB dated 2.9.2014 and for a direction to State respondents to award the contract to him in terms of clause 31.1(ii) of the ITB, rejecting the financial Bid of the respondent No. 5 in terms of clause 29.6 of the ITB for being non-responsive. 10. Heard Mr. Khoda Tama, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms. Geeta Deka, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Arunachal Pradesh appearing for the State respondent Nos. 1 to 4. 11. The State respondents contested the matter by filing affidavit and also produced the records. 12. The state respondent submitted that along with the Petitioner firm, other firms participated in the IFB dated 9.7.2013 and any claim of the petitioner with regard to said IFB dated 9.7.2013 is not valid at this stage as he participated in the subsequent IFB issued on 20.9.2013 without challenging the earlier IFB. Ms. 12. The state respondent submitted that along with the Petitioner firm, other firms participated in the IFB dated 9.7.2013 and any claim of the petitioner with regard to said IFB dated 9.7.2013 is not valid at this stage as he participated in the subsequent IFB issued on 20.9.2013 without challenging the earlier IFB. Ms. Deka also stated that as the petitioner and the other Bidders did not qualify in the technical bid of the earlier IFB and as the financial bids of the bidders were not opened, it was decided to go for re-tendering and accordingly the IFB dated 20.9.2013 was issued, as such there was no arbitrariness in the said decision of the State respondents in cancelling the IFB dated 9.7.2013. 13. With regard to the Invitation for Bids (IFB) dated 20.9.2013 and the Instruction to the Bidders (ITB) of the said IFB, the State respondent submitted that the respondent No. 5 quoted Bid Price of Rs. 6,45,16,503.63 and was found to be the lowest Bidder (LI). But the respondents came to a finding that comparing the estimated cost was of Rs. 8,21,86,192 as per the IFB dated 20,9.2013 and the price quoted by the respondent No. 5 (LI) in his Bid which was of Rs. 6,45,16,503.63 is 21.50 % below the said estimated cost put to tender and considered it to be extremely low. 14. As such the respondents following the provision of clause 29.5, clause 34 of the ITB and clause 52 of the Conditions of the Contract, keeping in mind that the respondent No. 5 is the lowest Bidder/successful Bidder, decided to offer conditional acceptance of his Bid subject to condition that he shall deposit the Unbalanced Bid Amount of Rs. 1,76,69,688.37 [i.e., the Estimated Cost specified in the IFB dated 20.9.2013 minus the Bid price quoted by the respondent No.5 (L1) {Rs.8,21,86,192.00 - Rs. 6,45,16,503.63 = Rs. 1,76,69,688.37} in the form of fixed deposit within 15 days from the date of issue of the notice and he shall also deposit Performance Security Deposit @ 5 % of the tendered amount/contract price amounting to Rs. 32.25,825 [i.e. 5% of Rs. 6,45,16,503.63, the Bid price quoted by the respondent No. 5 (L1)] in the form of fixed deposit within 21 days from the date of Notice. The State respondents decided for payment of such unbalanced Bid Amount of Rs. 32.25,825 [i.e. 5% of Rs. 6,45,16,503.63, the Bid price quoted by the respondent No. 5 (L1)] in the form of fixed deposit within 21 days from the date of Notice. The State respondents decided for payment of such unbalanced Bid Amount of Rs. 1,76,69,688.37 and increase of Performance Security Deposit from the respondent No. 5 (L1) so that it reaches a level sufficient enough to protect the Department against the financial loss in the event of its default under the contract. 15. The State respondents while taking such decision of conditional offer of acceptance of Bid of the lowest Bidder [respondent No. 5 (L1)] also decided that in the event of non-fulfilment of the said terms and conditions by the respondent No. 5 (L1), the tender shall automatically stand cancelled and fresh tender shall be invited by the Division and no further correspondence shall be entertained in the matter after the time specified in the notice. This departmental decision was duly approved by the all the authorities concerned. 16. Accordingly, the Executive Engineer, the respondent No. 4 issued the conditional letter of acceptance dated 28.7.2014 to the lowest Bidder, the respondent No. 5 (L1) directing him to deposit the Unbalanced Bid Amount of Rs. 1,76,69,688.37 in the form of a Fixed Deposit Receipt within 15 days and Performance Security Deposit @ 5% on his contract price, amounting Rs. 32.25.825 in the form of Fixed Deposit Receipt within 21 days, from the date of issuance of the said letter (28.7.2014), both in favour of the Executive Engineer, PWD, Ziro Division issued by any Scheduled Indian Bank with the information that letter to carry out the work shall be issued and site ol work shall be Randed over to Kim Only after deposit of above noted amounts and with the further conditions that that failure on his part [the respondent No. 5 (LI)] to deposit the aforesaid Unbalanced Bid Amount within 15 days and Performance Security Deposit within 21 days to the issuing authority of the letter as prescribed, the tender shall automatically stand cancelled and no further correspondence shall be entertained in that regard thereafter. 17. As the respondent No. 5 (L1) did not deposit the amount in terms of the aforesaid communication of the Executive Engineer, the respondent No. 4 dated 28.7.2014, within the time prescribed, the Official respondent accordingly issued re-tender for the said work. 18. Ms. 17. As the respondent No. 5 (L1) did not deposit the amount in terms of the aforesaid communication of the Executive Engineer, the respondent No. 4 dated 28.7.2014, within the time prescribed, the Official respondent accordingly issued re-tender for the said work. 18. Ms. Deka, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate also stated that the petitioner filed his representation on 2.9.2014 and from the records it is seen that it has been duly considered by the Departmental authorities and the outcome of the same was communicated to the petitioner on 8.9.2014. 19. Ms. Deka also submitted that the State respondents in the present cases did not follow the clause 20.04.30.1 of the CPWD Workd Manual, which is not a contract clause in the present IFB dated 20.9.2013 and in this case the IFB was invited in Standard Bidding Document of Ministry of Road Transport, Highways (MORTH) and, therefore, linking the CPWD Works Manual with the SBD as alleged by the petitioner is not correct. Ms. Deka further stated that in accordance with the Central Vigilance Commission Circular No. 4/3/07 dated 3.3.2007 and as per clause 32 of the ITB, on the default of the lowest bidder, the respondent No. 5 (L1), the State respondent have decide to go for re-tendering in the matter and the petitioner was not discriminated by any means. 20. During course of the hearing Ms. Deka also placed the calculation of the Assessed Bid Capacity of the Petitioner as well as that of the private respondent No. 5 (LI) and these calculations have been made by the Departmental authorities on the basis of the documents furnished by the petitioner as well as by the respondent No. 5 (LI) in their Bid to the IFB dated 20.9.2013. These calculations, which are kept as part of the record of the case, go to show that the Petitioner's Assessed Available Bid Capacity is Rs. 105.3363 crores, whereas that of the private respondent No. 5 is Rs.312.218 crores. 21. Ms. These calculations, which are kept as part of the record of the case, go to show that the Petitioner's Assessed Available Bid Capacity is Rs. 105.3363 crores, whereas that of the private respondent No. 5 is Rs.312.218 crores. 21. Ms. G. Deka, learned State counsel have placed the copies of Standard Bidding Document Procurement of Civil Works, communication dated 14.7.2014 of the Superintending Surveyor of Works for the Chief Engineer to the Superintending Engineer Yachuli Civil Circle, PWD with regard to financial bid and approval thereof of the respondent No. 5 (L1), conditional letter of acceptance letter dated 28.7.2014 ,of the Executive Engineer, Ziro Division PWD to the respondent No. 5 (L1), Central Vigilance Commission's Circular No. 4/3/07 dated 3.3.2007 and communication dated 8.9.2014 of the Superintending Surveyor of Works for the Chief Engineer to the Petitioner with regard its representation dated 1.9.2014 and Clause 52 of the Conditions of the Contract as enclosed with the IFB dated 20.9.2013 as Annexures 1, 3a, 3b, 4, 5 and 8 to the Affidavit of the State respondents. 22. Let us see the relevant provision of the Instruction to Bidders and other terms and conditions of the IFB dated 20.9.2013 on the basis of which the petitioner and the State respondents are contending the present case which are given below. 23. Clause 26 of the ITB relates to Examination of Bids and Determination of Responsiveness and Clauses 26.1, 26. 2 and 26.3 reads as follows : "26.1 During the detailed evaluation of "Technical Bids", the Employer will determine whether each Bid (a) meets the eligibility criteria defined in clauses 3 and 4;(b) has been properly signed; (c) is accompanied by the required securities and; (d) is substantially responsive to the requirements of the Bidding documents. During the detailed evaluation of the "Financial Bid", the responsiveness of the bids will be further determined with respect to the remaining bid conditions, i.e., priced bill of quantities, technical specifications, and drawings. 26.2 A substantially responsive "Financial Bid" is one which conforms to all the terms, conditions, and specifications of the Bidding Documents, without material deviation or reservation. During the detailed evaluation of the "Financial Bid", the responsiveness of the bids will be further determined with respect to the remaining bid conditions, i.e., priced bill of quantities, technical specifications, and drawings. 26.2 A substantially responsive "Financial Bid" is one which conforms to all the terms, conditions, and specifications of the Bidding Documents, without material deviation or reservation. A material deviation or reservation is one (a) which affects in any substantial way the scope, quality or performance of the works; (b) which limits in any substantial way, inconsistent with the Bidding documents, the Employer's rights or the Bidder's obligations under the Contract; or (c) whose rectification would affect unfairly the competitive position of other Bidders presenting substantially responsive Bids. 26.3 If a "Financial Bids" is not substantially responsive, it will be rejected by the Employer and may not subsequently be made responsive by correction or withdrawal of the non-conforming deviation or reservation." 24. Clause 29 of the ITB relates to Evaluation and Comparison of Financial Bids and clause 29.1 and 29.2. 29.5 and 29.6 reads as follows : "29.1 The Employer will evaluate and compare only the Bids determined to be substantially responsive in accordance with sub-clause 26.2. 29.2 In evaluating the Bids, the Employer will determine for each Bid the evaluated Bid Price by adjusting the Bid Price as follows: (a) making any correction for errors pursuant to clause 27; or (b) making an appropriate adjustments for any other acceptable variations, deviations; and (c) making an appropriate adjustments to reflect discounts or other price modifications offered in accordance with sub-clause 23.6. 29.5 If the Bid of the successful Bidder is seriously unbalanced in relation to Engineers estimate of the cost of work to be performed under the contract, the Employer may require the Bidder to produce the detailed price analysis for any or all items of the Bill of Quantities, to demonstrate the internal consistency of those prices with the construction methods and Schedule proposed. After evaluation of the price analysis, the Employer require that the amount of the performance security set forth in clause 34 be increased at the expense of the successful Bidder to a level sufficient to protect the Employer against financial loss in the event of default of the successful Bidder under the Contract. After evaluation of the price analysis, the Employer require that the amount of the performance security set forth in clause 34 be increased at the expense of the successful Bidder to a level sufficient to protect the Employer against financial loss in the event of default of the successful Bidder under the Contract. 29.6 A bid which contains several items in the Bill of Quantities which are unrealistically priced low and which cannot be substantiated satisfactorily by the bidder may be rejected as non-responsive." 25. Clause 31 of the ITB relates to Award Criteria, which reads as follows : "31.1 Subject to clause 32, the Employer will award the Contract to the Bidder whose Bid has been determined (i) To be substantially responsive to the Bidding documents and who has offered the lowest evaluated Bid Price; and (ii) to be within the available bid capacity adjusted to account for his bid price which is evaluated the lowest in any of the packages opened earlier than the one under consideration. In no case, the contract shall be awarded to any bidder whose available bid capacity is less than the evaluated bid price, even if the said bid is the lowest evaluated bid. The contract will in such cases be awarded to the next lowest bidder at his evaluated bid price." 26. Clause 32 of the ITB relates to Employer's right to Accept any Bid and to Reject any or all Bids and clauses 32.1 and 32.2 reads as follows : "32.1 Notwithstanding clause 31, the Employer reserves the right to accept or reject, any Bid, and to cancel the Bidding process and reject all Bids, at any time prior to the award of contract, without thereby incurring any liability to the affected Bidder or Bidders or any obligation to inform the affected Bidder or Bidders of the grounds for the Employers action. 32.2 Notwithstanding clause 31, the award of the contract shall be subject to the availability of Administrative Approval and Expenditure sanction of the work from competent authority." 27. 32.2 Notwithstanding clause 31, the award of the contract shall be subject to the availability of Administrative Approval and Expenditure sanction of the work from competent authority." 27. Clause 34 of the ITB relates to Performance Security and clauses 34.1, 34.2 and 34.3 reads as follows : "34.1 Within 21 days of receipt of the Letter of Acceptance, the successful Bidder shall deliver to the Employer a Performance Security in any of the forms given below for an amount equivalent to 5% of the Contract price plus additional security for unbalanced Bids in accordance with clause 29.5 of ITB and clause 52 of Conditions of Contract. 34.2 If the performance security is provided by the successful in the form of a Bank Guarantee, it shall be issued either (a) at the Bidders option, by a Nationalized/Scheduled Indian Bank or (b) by a foreign bank located in India and acceptable to the Employer. 34.3 Failure on the successful Bidder to comply with the requirements of sub-clause 345.1 shall constitute sufficient grounds for cancellation of the award and forfeiture of the Bid Security." 28. Clause 52 of the Conditions of Contract attached with the IFB dated 20.9.2013 reads as follows : "52.1 The Performance Security (including additional security for unbalanced bids) shall be provided to the Employer no later than the date specified in the letter of Acceptance and shall be issued in an amount and form and by a bank or surety acceptable to the Employer, and denominated in Indian Rupees. The Performance Security shall be valid until a date 28 days from the date of expiry of Defects Liability Period and the additional security for unbalanced bids shall be valid until a date 28 days from the date of issue of the certificate of completion." 29. From the perusal of the records, the averments made in the affidavit filed by the State respondents and the aforesaid clauses of the ITB and Conditions of Contracts it is seen that after opening of Financial Bids, the official Respondents found the respondent No. 5 to be the Successful/ Lowest Bidder (L1) artd its Bid Price/Contract Amount is 21.5% less, which is seriously unbalanced in relation to the Estimated Cost as per the IFB dated 20.9.2013. In such circumstances following the provisions of clauses 29.5 and 34 of the IFB and clause 54 of the Conditions of Contract, the State respondent decided to offer conditional acceptance of the Bid of the respondent No. 5, the successful Bidder subject to condition of his deposit of Unbalanced Bid Amount and Performance Security Deposit @ 5% of his the tendered amount/within a specified time so that such deposits are sufficient to protect the Employer against financial loss in the event of default of the said successful Bidder under the Contract. The petitioner claims that the bid of respondent No. 5 is unrealistically low so that the said bidder may be rejected, but the State respondents complying with the provisions of clauses 29.5 and 34 of the IFB and clause 54 of the Conditions of Contract offered the conditional award of contract to the respondent No. 5 which they are empowered with. 30. Secondly, petitioner claimed that as per Award Criteria of clause 31 of the ITB, by following the provisions of clause Sl.l.(ii) the State respondents should have awarded the contract in question to it as the petitioner is the next lowest bidder (L2). But it is seen that clause 32 of the ITB gives right to the Employer to accept any bid and to reject any or all bids and further clause 31.1 of the ITB, of the Award Criteria clearly provides that it is subject to clause 32, the Employer will award the contract. In this regard Ms. Deka, learned Government Advocate rightly pointed out that the present construction work relates to only one package and clause 31.1.(ii) relates with packages, and, therefore, the petitioner cannot claim any benefit from this clause." 31. It is seen from the records and the annexures appended by the State respondent that before offering conditional acceptance of bid of the respondent No. 5 (LI), the departmental authorities approved the decision that in the event of non-fulfilment of the conditions by the contractor/bidder, the tender shall automatically stand cancelled and fresh tender shall be invited by the division and no further correspondence shall be entertained in the matter. This is reflected from the communication dated 14.7.2014 issued on behalf of the Chief Engineer, PWD, Annexure 5 series to the writ petition and Annexure 3a to the affidavit of the State re$pondents. This is reflected from the communication dated 14.7.2014 issued on behalf of the Chief Engineer, PWD, Annexure 5 series to the writ petition and Annexure 3a to the affidavit of the State re$pondents. Moreover, records reveal that the State respondents decided that as the matter relates to Scheme of SPA 2011-12, it cannot be allowed to be delayed any further. 32. The decision of this court in S.K. Rai (M/s.) and Another v. Union of India and Others, 2002 (3) GLT 463 cited by Mr. Tama, learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable in the present case as the case cited by the petitioner relates to relaxation of clauses of the NIT in favour of the private respondent therein and with ulterior motive entering into an agreement with the said respondent. But in the present case the State respondents after complying with the provisions of the ITB and conditions of Contract offered conditional acceptance letter to the lowest bidder and failure its part decide to go for fresh tender inviting the bids. 33. From the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, no arbitrariness or illegality has been found in the decision making process of the State respondents in giving fresh Invitation for Bids (IFB) dated 2.9.2014 for the same work. 34. In view of the above, this petitions being devoid of any merit stands dismissed. 35. The Interim order of status quo passed by the court on 12.9.2014 in the connected MC. [WP(G) No. 104(AP)/2014 ]is hereby recalled/stands vacated. 36. No order as to costs.