JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Taba Tagum, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Kardak Ete, learned Senior Addl. Advocate General, Arunachal Pradesh, assisted by Mr. Duge Sold, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate, appearing for State respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5, as well as Mr. Ajin Apang, learned senior counsel, assisted by Ms. Nani Anju, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 4. 2. By filing the petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside and quashing of the impugned Notice of rejection dated 23.6.2017 issued by the respondent No. 4, viz., Executive Engineer, Doimukh PWD Division, in respect of his technical bid, followed by impugned communication letter dated 5.7.2017 whereby the petitioner's bids has been illegally and arbitrarily rejected by the Tender Evaluation Committee by citing Clause 4.5.10 of the Standard Bidding Document. The petitioner has further prayed for a direction to the authorities concerned to open the financial bids of the petitioner and recommend the same for participation in the financial bids in respect of the tender work, viz. regarding Construction of Road from Kakoi to Boginadi Road via Kui, Dirgha and Borsutum (from km 0.00 to km 8.00) under Inter-State Connectivity (ISC) in the State of Arunachal Pradesh, at an estimated cost of Rs. 2,031,780 lakhs. 3. The petitioner, herein, is a Class-I Sole Proprietorship Firm duly registered under the State as per the provisions of Arunachal Pradesh Enlistment of Contractor in Works Departments Rules, 2008, vide Registration dated 6.6.2008. The petitioner firm has been revalidated from time-to-time and as such, as per latest revalidation dated 5.8.2016, it has validity till 2019. 4. The facts of the case, in brief, is that in response to ‘e-tender’ for the work, stated above, the petitioner had participated in the tender process by submitting its bids in the website of the department within specified time. According to the petitioner, though the Technical bid was opened on 25.4.2017 but neither the result of technical bid evaluation nor the name of the list of bidders, if any, has been notified in the website as on the date of filing the writ petition, which is against the principles of ‘e’ tendering system. According to the petitioner, though the Technical bid was opened on 25.4.2017 but neither the result of technical bid evaluation nor the name of the list of bidders, if any, has been notified in the website as on the date of filing the writ petition, which is against the principles of ‘e’ tendering system. Since the financial bid in respect of the work, in question, was not opened on 9.5.2017, upon enquiry, the petitioner was informed that the opening, date of the financial bid would be notified in the website and the same would also be intimated to the petitioner, later on. However, as yet, no notification has been issued by the State respondents for the change of opening date of the financial bids. When the matter rested, thus, the petitioner, all of a sudden, received the impugned notice of rejection in respect of his technical bid on 27.6.2017, purportedly, issued by respondent No. 4 vide impugned letter dated 23.6.2017 whereby the petitioner's technical bid has been arbitrarily rejected by the Tender Evaluation Committee (‘TEC’) by citing clause 4.5.10 of the Standard Bidding Document (‘SBD’), According to the petitioner, the sole ground cited for declaring the petitioner's firm as technically non-responsive is “false representation” which is not tenable inasmuch as he did not make any false representation or mislead the authority in any manner while submitting his tender documents nor there was any history of abandoning any work awarded to his Firm or poor performance of work or financial failure due to bankruptcy or any history of litigation on account of such poor performance/abandoning of any work awarded to his Firm. Being aggrieved, the petitioner submitted representation dated 27.6.2017 to the respondent-Executive Engineer, Doimukh PWD Division, clarifying the matter that he cannot be disqualified under clause 4.5.10 of the SBD. According to him, the provision of clause 4.5.10 of the SBD can only be made applicable to the Firm/bidder; if such Firm/bidder has either made false representation and misled the authority in the form of statement submitted and/or record of poor performance such as abandoning the work, rescinding of contract for which the reasons are attributable to the non-performance of the contractor, consistent history of litigation awarded against the applicant or financial failure due to bankruptcy. Since there is no record available against the petitioner for disqualification under clause 4.5.10, therefore, rejection of petitioner's technical bids by citing clause 4.5.10 of SBD by the authority concerned, is arbitrary, illegal and on non-existent ground. 5. That apart, as stated above, as neither the result of technical evaluation has been notified in the website, nor, any notification has been issued by the State respondent about the opening date of financial bid, therefore, the petitioner submitted representation dated 4.7.2017 to respondent No. 4 requesting him not to proceed with the opening of the financial bid but till date, the said representation is pending consideration. 6. In the meantime, the respondent No. 4, viz. Executive Engineer, Doimukh PWD Division, Doimukh, vide impugned letter, dated 5.7.2017, informed the petitioner that his technical bid has been rejected by the TEC as per clause 4.5.10 of the SBD, on the ground, as stated above. Being further aggrieved, vide representation dated 6.7.2017, the petitioner sought for furnishing of information with supporting documents pertaining to rejection of his technical bids. Till now, no supporting documents has been furnished to him. Therefore, in the absence of any such information, the petitioner has no knowledge about the present status of the tender process and as on date, it is not understood as to how and what manner and by what material facts, the petitioner's bid has been subjected to disqualification under clause 4.5.10 of the SBD. 7. It is the further case of the petitioner that he had demanded justice and the same has been denied to him repeatedly and as such, the petitioner has no any other alternative efficacious remedy other than to approach this court, and the relief sought for, if granted, would be just, adequate and proper. 8. Mr. Tagum, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, while putting forward his argument, submits that the State Respondents have not yet filed any counter-affidavit in this case to justify the grounds for rejection of his technical bid, to which, Mr. Ete, learned Senior Addl. Advocate General, submits that since respondent No. 4 who is the concerned Executive Engineer of Doimukh PWD Division, has already filed the affidavit-in-opposition in this writ petition, therefore, he would rely on the stand taken by the said respondent, and as such, no separate affidavit is required to be filed on behalf of other State respondents. 9. Mr. Advocate General, submits that since respondent No. 4 who is the concerned Executive Engineer of Doimukh PWD Division, has already filed the affidavit-in-opposition in this writ petition, therefore, he would rely on the stand taken by the said respondent, and as such, no separate affidavit is required to be filed on behalf of other State respondents. 9. Mr. Ete, learned Senior Additional Advocate General, while relying on the said affidavit-in-opposition filed by respondent No. 4, also submits that the petitioner has submitted a written declaration to the effect that he has no any litigation with any Department in connection with any contract since inception of his business. However, the respondent-Executive Engineer, Doimukh PWD Division, upon receipt of a complaint against the petitioner for submitting false declaration regarding non-litigation, has sought clarification from the learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate, Arunachal Pradesh, vide letter, dated 15.5.2017, in response to which, following 2 cases have been mentioned by the learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate, in his letter, dated 18.5.2017: (i) Tama Fabrication Works vs. State of A.P. WP (C) No. 637(AP)/2016, filed on 9.12.2016, against the Tender process pertaining to the Project “C/o Double Storeyed building at Sagalee Hr. Sec. School” which was dismissed on 16.2.2017. (ii) Mesnia Enterprises vs. State of A.P. WP (C) No. 69(AP)/2017, filed by M/s. Mesnia Enterprises, challenging the works awarded to various firms against the project Implemented by Tourism Department, Government of A.P. under Swadesh Darshan, wherein the present petitioner has been arrayed as respondent No. 15. 10. Mr. Ete, learned Senior Additional Advocate General, Arunachal Pradesh, further submits that the said Executive Engineer, thereafter, had sought for legal opinion from his office vide letter dated 13.6.2017 as to whether the said two cases can be treated as ‘litigation’ within the meaning and expression of clause 4.5.8 of the SBD, in response to which, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate has opined that the aforesaid two cases can be treated as ‘litigation’ within the meaning of clause 4.5.8 of the SBD. Therefore, it is contended by Mr. Ete, that since the petitioner had submitted false declaration, hence, technical bid of the petitioner has been rightfully rejected under the clause 4.5.10. 11. While strongly defending the action taken by the State respondents and TEC, Mr. Therefore, it is contended by Mr. Ete, that since the petitioner had submitted false declaration, hence, technical bid of the petitioner has been rightfully rejected under the clause 4.5.10. 11. While strongly defending the action taken by the State respondents and TEC, Mr. Ete, also submits that proper procedure has been followed by the TEC to arrive at a logical conclusion for rejecting the technical bid of the petitioner and ground cited, therein, is genuine and valid ground. He, therefore, submits that the ground on which the petitioner's technical bid has been rejected, cannot be said to be arbitrary and/or illegal. Hence, he vehemently contends that interference of this court in the instant case, is uncalled for. 12. In support of his arguments, as made above, Mr. Ete, learned Senior Additional Advocate General, has relied upon the decisions of the Apex Court, viz. (i) Jagdish Mandal vs. State of Orissa, (2007) 14 SCC 517 (ii) Bakshi Security and Personnel Services (P.) Ltd. vs. Devkishan Computer (P.) Ltd. (2016) 8 SCC 446 (iii) Central Coalfields Ltd. vs. SLL-SML (Joint Venture) Consortium, (2016) 8 SCC 622 (iv) Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. vs. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. (2016) 16 SCC 818 While placing reliance on the above-cited cases; Mr. Ete has argued that power of judicial review under article 226 of constitution of India, cannot be exercised in the tender process unless decision making process is vitiated by mala-fide conduct of the respondent-authority and that, the respondent-authority is the best authority to interpret the clause of the SBD. Thus, Mr. Ete, has argued that the authority has the right to rigidly enforce the terms of the tender and the petitioner cannot seek direction from the court for restraining the employer from strict enforcement of such terms. 13. Stoutly refuting the case of the petitioner, respondent No. 4, represented by Mr. Apang, learned senior counsel, has filed a short affidavit-in-opposition in this writ proceeding as well as filed an Interlocutory Application being IA (WP) No. 124 (AP)/2017 for vacation of this court's interim order dated 7.7.2017 passed in this petition, i.e. WP (C) No. 556 (AP)/2017. At the very outset of the affidavit-in-opposition, the said respondent No. 4 has averred that the instant writ petition is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties. 14. At the very outset of the affidavit-in-opposition, the said respondent No. 4 has averred that the instant writ petition is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties. 14. Thereafter, in the said affidavit-in-opposition, it has been contended by respondent No. 4, as under: The instant work was accorded administrative and financial approval on 3.10.2016. Thereafter, the first Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) was issued on 28.12.2016. However, tender process could not be completed since there was only one technically responsive firm. Hence, the said work was re-tendered in two-cover bid system through ‘e-procurement’ on 16.3.2017 and the result of technical bid has not been notified. Though the technical bids were opened on 25.4.2017, the entire evaluation took more time than expected and there was slight delay in the declaration of the result of evaluation of the technical bid. In the meantime, a complaint was received by the said respondent No. 4 to the extent that the petitioner-Firm had submitted false affidavit in respect of ‘no litigation affidavit’. 6 other Firms were rejected by the authorities concerned on various grounds while the technical bid of the petitioner was rejected only after obtaining legal opinion from the Departments concerned. Thereafter, the Notice was published online on 23.6.2017. Therefore, there is no truth that the result of technical bid evaluation has not been published. It has been reiterated by the said respondent No. 4 that the date of financial bid opening has already been notified vide notice published through online on 23.6.2017. 15. In the said affidavit-in-opposition, the respondent No. 4 has further contended that upon an inquiry made by the Department into the complaint, it was found that the petitioner-Firm was involved in litigation during the period of last 5 years and, therefore, the Firm had made false representation as such, it was disqualified by the authority concerned by invoking clause 4.5.10 of the SBD. It has also been contended by respondent No. 4 that clause 44 of the SBD provides that the bids can be rejected by the employer without assigning any reasons. Therefore, there was no illegality, in the rejection of the bid of the petitioner and the entire tender process carried out so far, has been done in a very transparent manner without any favouritism to any bidder by following due process of law. 16. Mr. Apang, learned senior counsel, while fully endorsing the argument of Mr. Therefore, there was no illegality, in the rejection of the bid of the petitioner and the entire tender process carried out so far, has been done in a very transparent manner without any favouritism to any bidder by following due process of law. 16. Mr. Apang, learned senior counsel, while fully endorsing the argument of Mr. Ete, learned Senior Additional Advocate General, submits that under clause 4.5.8 of the SBD, the petitioner was required to furnish detailed history of litigation which arose during the last 5 years. Mr. Apang, learned senior counsel, therefore, submits that the petitioner instead of furnishing the details of his two cases, namely, WP (C) No. 637 (AP)/2016 and WP (C) No. 69 (AP)/2017, has submitted a declaration to the effect that he has no any litigation with any department in connection with any contract since inception of his business, which is directly attracted by clause 4.5.10 of SBD. Therefore, he has argued that the petitioner's technical bid has been correctly rejected by the TEC under clause 4.5.10 of the SBD and as such, interference of this court, in the instant case, is uncalled for. In support of his disputation, Mr. Apang, has relied upon the decision rendered in the case of Nayak Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. vs. State, AIR 2014 J&K 7 , to contend that non-furnishing of litigation history by the petitioner has fatal consequences and the same would entail the rejection of his technical bids. Hence, it has been prayed by him that the instant writ petition may be dismissed at the threshold, with Post. 17. In the said affidavit-in-opposition, respondent No. 4, without referring to any specific case, has contended that the Apex Court, in a catena of cases, had held that the tender process being in the realm of contract, the decisions of tender evaluation committees are amenable to judicial scrutiny only on very limited grounds, e.g. whether public interest is affected, or whether process adopted and the decision made are so arbitrary that no reasonable person could have made it or whether the decision so made is made with an intent to favour someone, etc. The respondent No. 4, therefore, contends that rejection of petitioner's technical bids having been done under the stipulated terms of the SBD, no Irregularity or arbitrariness has been committed by him. Hence, it has been prayed by Mr. The respondent No. 4, therefore, contends that rejection of petitioner's technical bids having been done under the stipulated terms of the SBD, no Irregularity or arbitrariness has been committed by him. Hence, it has been prayed by Mr. Apang, that the instant writ petition may be dismissed at the threshold, with cost. 18. On the other hand, Mr. Tagum, learned counsel for the petitioner, while controverting the arguments of Mr. Apang, learned senior counsel, has strenuously argued that clause 4.5.10 of the SBD, is not, at all, attracted In the case of the present petitioner. Thus, rejection of the petitioner's technical bids by citing clause 4.5.10 is unjust, unfair and unreasonable. Hence, the impugned minutes of technical bid evaluation purportedly held on 15.6.2017 leading to rejection of petitioner's technical bids under clause 4.5.10 of SBD vide impugned memo No. DD/DRG-10(CRF)/2017-18, dated 23.6.2017, is arbitrary, illegal and the same is not sustainable in law, and as such, the same is liable to be set aside and quashed. 19. To be more precise, in response to the affidavit-in-opposition as well as the interlocutory application so filed by the respondent No. 4; the writ petitioner, herein, has filed the affidavit-in-reply to the counter-affidavit as well as the affidavit-in-opposition to the interlocutory application. 20. In his affidavit-in-reply, it has been contended by the writ petitioner that “necessary party” is a person in whose absence, no court would be able to adjudicate or decide the issue involved in the matter, effectively. However, in the instant case, the petitioner has impleaded all the necessary official respondents including TEC and, therefore, this court would be able to decide the matter, effectively. According to the petitioner, since all those official respondents who are connected, in any manner, with the NIT, in question, have been arrayed as respondents in this case to decide the legality and validity of rejection of the petitioner's technical bids under clause 4.5.10 of the SBD, therefore, the allegation of non-joinder of necessary parties by respondent No. 4, according to him, is absolutely misconceived. 21. 21. In the said affidavit-in-reply, it has been further contended by the petitioner that the result of technical bids evaluation has never been notified in the concerned website on 23.6.2017 which itself defeats the very purpose of “online tender” system which is actually meant to maintain transparency in the process and records of every proceeding and transaction is, therefore, to be uploaded in the website for public view. Sadly, no relevant records/information pertaining to technical bid evaluation has been uploaded in the website. Hence, there is a complete lack of transparency in the present tender process. It is also the categorical statement of the writ petitioner that the date of financial bid opening has never been notified in the website and in fact, the impugned purported rejection notice dated 23.6.2017, which was ‘e-mailed’ to the petitioner by the respondent No. 4, on 27.6.2017, at around 3 p.m., was received by him only on 27.6.2017. In the said rejection Notice, though the respondent-authority has stated to have returned the bid security but as of date, the said amount has not been withdrawn by the petitioner. Hence, the security amount submitted by the petitioner still remained in force and is, thus, valid in favour of the State respondents. It is further submitted by the petitioner that as per clause 16.4 of the SBD, the bid security of unsuccessful bidder has to be returned within 28 days of end of bid validity period, however, in the instant case, the manner in which bid security of the petitioner has been returned through postal service; clearly transpires the extraneous consideration on the part of respondent No. 4 to eliminate and oust the petitioner from competition by adopting unfair and illegal means. 22. 22. The petitioner, by filing the affidavit-in-reply, reiterates that he did not make any false representation or misled the authority in any manner in terms of clause 4.5.8 of the SBD while submitting the tender documents, According to him, the prime object of clause 4.5.8 of the SBD is to adjudge the technical credential and capability of the bidder to ensure that the participant firm has enough capacity to carry-out the project effectively, if the project is awarded to it; and also to ensure that there was no adverse antecedent on account of poor performance or abandoning the works or rescinding of contract which gave rise to consistent history of litigation against the work awarded to such bidder/firm. 23. The writ petitioner contends that he has no history of abandoning any work awarded to the petitioner-Firm or poor performance of work or financial failure due to bankruptcy or any known history of litigation on account of such poor performance/abandoning of any work awarded to him at the time of submitting the tender documents. Hence, petitioner's technical bid could not have been rejected in terms of clauses 4.5.8 and 4.5,10 of the SBD. Therefore, the impugned rejection Notice dated 23.6.2017 by invoking clause 4.5.10 of the SBD, according to the petitioner, is unlawful and as such, the same is liable to be set aside and quashed. 24. Furthermore, in the said reply, the petitioner contends that as per clause 4.5.8 of the SBD, the bidder is required to provide accurate information on any known history of litigation or arbitration resulting from contracts completed or under execution by him over the last 5 years. In the instant case, the petitioner has no history of litigation or arbitration resulting from contract completed or under execution by him over the last 5 years at the time of submitting the tender documents. Since the petitioner has no such history in terms of clause 4.5.8 of the SBD, therefore, he had submitted the declaration dated 17.4.2017 stating that he has no litigation with any department regarding any type of contract since inception of his business. Hence, the petitioner-Firm cannot be accused of making false representation or misleading the authorities by making the declaration as on 21.4.2017, i.e. the date on which, he had submitted the tender documents. 25. According to Mr. Hence, the petitioner-Firm cannot be accused of making false representation or misleading the authorities by making the declaration as on 21.4.2017, i.e. the date on which, he had submitted the tender documents. 25. According to Mr. Tagum, learned counsel, the word ‘contract’ used in clause 4.5.8 relates to agreement enforceable, by law signed between the employer and the contractor. Therefore, the meaning of “litigation resulting from contract” within the ambit of clause 4.5.8 of the SBD, only relates to dispute/litigation between the parties to the contract or between employer and contractor in the event of breach of certain terms and conditions of such contract or non-performance/poor performance of contract or rescinding of contract, etc. Therefore, Mr. Tagum, submits that the word ‘contract’ used in clause 4.5.8, relates to the agreement enforceable by law between the employer and the contractor. Hence, the meaning of “any litigation or arbitration resulting from contract” within the ambit of clause 4.5.8 of SBD, only relates to dispute/litigation between parties to the contract or between employer and contractor. However, Mr. Tagum, learned counsel, submits that since the petitioner do not have any such litigation with any department resulting from any type of contract, hence, declaration dated 17.4.2017 so submitted by the petitioner stating that “he has no litigation with any department in connection with any contract” cannot be said to be a false representation. Thus, rejection of the petitioner's technical bids by alleging false representation vide Minutes of Technical Bid Evaluation dated 15.6.2017 and rejection Notice dated 23.6.2017, are absolutely illegal and arbitrary, and as such, the same are liable to be set aside and quashed. 26. Mr. Tagum, learned counsel, further contends that to interpret the word ‘litigation’ within the meaning of clause 4.5.8 of the SBD, the dispute/litigation must be in between the parties to the contract agreement. In such a situation only, the bidder is required to provide accurate information against such litigation in terms of clause 4.5.8 of the SBD. Since the petitioner had no such litigation/disputes within the meaning of clause 4.5.8 of SBD, therefore, he has rightfully submitted his declaration dated 17.4.2017 by stating that he had no litigation with any department in connection with any contract. Hence, petitioner's declaration 17.4.2017, which is, purportedly, the sole ground alleged by the authority concerned for rejection of petitioner's bids, cannot be termed a false representation. 27. According to Mr. Hence, petitioner's declaration 17.4.2017, which is, purportedly, the sole ground alleged by the authority concerned for rejection of petitioner's bids, cannot be termed a false representation. 27. According to Mr. Tagum, learned counsel, though the State respondents have tried to rope in the petitioner under the provision of clause 4.5.8 of the SBD, by citing WP (C) No. 637 (AP)/2016, and WP (C) No. 69 (AP)/2017, but the same are not applicable to the instant case, on the following grounds: (1) In WP (C) No. 637 (AP)/2016, the main challenge was that at the time of opening of tenders, the respondent-authority had taken a decision and arrived at a conclusion that justified rate is Rs. 9,56,81,411 but they subsequently altered the justified rate to Rs. 9,66,68,587, with ulterior motive to favour the private respondent. Thus, the said WP (C) No. 637 (AP)/2016 has neither resulted from the contract completed by the petitioner nor it has resulted from the contract under execution by the petitioner. Hence, the background of the case in the said writ petition, does not fall within the meaning of clause 4.5.8 of the SBD. Hence, by citing the said case, the technical bids of the petitioner could not have been rejected by the TEC vide Notice dated 23.6.2017. (2) As regards WP (C) No. 69 (AP)/2017, the present petitioner did not have any knowledge about it's institution by one M/s. Mesnia Enterprises till the last date of tender submission, i.e. 24.4.2017. The petitioner had submitted his tender paper on 21.4.2017 and technical bids were opened on 25.4.2017. Thus, after opening of the technical bids, notice in respect of WP (C) No. 69 (AP)/2017 was received by him only on 5.5.2017 through dusti service. The said case was reportedly withdrawn by M/s. Mesnia Enterprises vide order dated 29.5.2017. Hence, according to Mr. Tagum, the’ writ petitioner had no knowledge about the said case as on the date of filing of his tender documents and as such, the question of submitting false representation cannot arise at all under the attending facts and circumstances of the case, at hand. Hence, according to Mr. Tagum, the’ writ petitioner had no knowledge about the said case as on the date of filing of his tender documents and as such, the question of submitting false representation cannot arise at all under the attending facts and circumstances of the case, at hand. He submits that be that as it may, the challenge in WP (C) No. 69 (AP)/2017, was against non-publication of proper NIT against the various projects under “integrated development of new adventure tourism In Arunachal Pradesh under Swadesh Darshan.” Situated, thus, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that WP (C) No. 69 (AP)/2017 preferred by some other litigant, has resulted from the contract completed by the instant petitioner or it has resulted from the contract under execution by him. Hence, the petitioner's technical bid ought not to have been rejected by the TEC by referring to WP (C) No. 69 (AP)/2017. 28. According to Mr. Tagum, learned counsel, the main issue involved in the instant case, is as to whether the above-mentioned cases fall within the meaning and ambit of clause 4.5.8 of the SBD which provides that the bidder is required to provide accurate information on any litigation or arbitration resulting from contract completed or under execution over last five years. The bottom line of clause 4.5.8, is that litigation or arbitration should be between the employer and contractor in the context of contract signed between them against the project. Such litigation must be instituted either by the employer or contractor on account of breach of condition of the contract signed between them. In the event of that case only, the bidder is required to furnish information on such litigation. Since the instant petitioner has no such nature of litigation against any department, therefore, he has submitted his declaration dated 17.4.2017 by stating that he has no litigation with any department arising out of any contract and the said declaration, therefore, cannot be said to be a false representation. Thus, aforesaid two cases do not fall within the meaning and expression of clause 4.5.8 of the SBD though it is a fact that WP (C) No. 637 (AP)/2017 was filed by the instant petitioner but dispute, therein, did not result from contract between the petitioner and the department, as stated above. Thus, aforesaid two cases do not fall within the meaning and expression of clause 4.5.8 of the SBD though it is a fact that WP (C) No. 637 (AP)/2017 was filed by the instant petitioner but dispute, therein, did not result from contract between the petitioner and the department, as stated above. On the other hand, WP (C) No. 69 (AP)/2017 was filed by some other litigant who was not at all, a party to the contract. Hence, provision of clause A.5.10 of SBD is not attracted to the petitioner in the instant case. Hence, rejection of petitioner's technical bids by citing clause 4.5.10, is absolutely illegal as the same is made on non-existent ground. 29. According to Mr. Tagum, rejection of the petitioner's technical bid under clauses 4.5.8 and 4.5.10 of the SBD, smacks arbitrariness, unreasonableness and mala-fide on the part of the State respondents. 30. Hence, by filing the detailed affidavit-in-reply as well as the affidavit-in-opposition to the interlocutory application so filed by respondent No. 4 praying for vacation of this court's interim order dated 7.7.2017 passed in WP (C) No. 556 (AP)/2017, the writ petitioner has prayed for setting aside and quashing of the impugned: (i) Technical bid rejection Notice dated 23.6.2017, (ii) Minutes of Technical Bid Evaluation dated 15.6.2017 and (iii) Technical bid rejection Notice dated 23.6.2017 as well as for a direction to the respondents authority to open the financial bid of the petitioner and allow the petitioner to participate in further proceedings of the tender process in respect of work, in question. 31. I have heard the rival submissions as made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have duly considered the same and have also gone through the materials made available on record as well as perused the various decisions relied upon by them. I have also perused the original tender files produced by the learned Senior Additional Advocate General, Arunachal Pradesh. 32. The crux of the dispute, in the instant petition, lies in the following “Declaration/ Undertaking of Non-Litigation” given by the petitioner as per the SBD: “DECLARATION/UNDERTAKING OF NON-LITIGATION I, the undersigned do hereby declare that I have not any type of litigation with any Department regarding any type of contract since inception of my business. Date: 17.4.2017 Sd/- Mr. Techi Tama Proprietor M/s. Tama Fabrication Works, A-Sector, Nahariagun (A.P.)” 33. Date: 17.4.2017 Sd/- Mr. Techi Tama Proprietor M/s. Tama Fabrication Works, A-Sector, Nahariagun (A.P.)” 33. To appreciate the above “Declaration/Undertaking” it would be relevant to understand the expression and language of clause 4.5.8 and 4.5.10 of bid document. For better appreciation, clauses 4.5.8 and 4.5.10 of the SBD, are reproduced herein below: “4.5.8 Litigation History: The applicant should provide accurate information on any litigation or arbitration resulting from contract completed or under execution by him over the last five years. A consistent history of award against the applicant or any partner of joint venture may result in failure of the applicant. 4.5.10 Disqualification: Even though the applicant meet the above criteria, they are subject to be disqualified if they have: (i) Made misleading or false representation in the forms, statement submitted. (ii) Record of poor performance such as abandoning the work, rescinding of contract for which the reason are attributable to the non-performance of the contractor, consistent history of litigation awarded against the applicant or financial failure due to bankruptcy. The rescinding of contract of a joint venture on account of reason other than non-performance, such as most experience partner of joint venture pulling out, court direction leading to breaking up of a joint venture before the start of work, Which are not attributable to the poor performance of the contractor will, however, not affect the prequalification of the individual partners.” 34. The technical construction of the above relevant provision in SBD, needs to be understood here, in the attribution of purpose of the Government authority which framed it vis-a-vis the constitutional mandate under article 14. Mr. Ete, learned Senior Additional Advocate General, Arunachal Pradesh, emphasized on the word ‘or’ occurring in the aforesaid provision and submitted that the word ‘or’ is normally disjunctive and ‘and’ is normally conjunctive, but at times, they are read as vice versa to give effect to the manifest intention as disclosed from the context. 35. To address the first issue pertaining to clause 4.5.8 of SBD, it is required to know as to whether the present petitioner has any litigation or arbitration resulting from contract completed or under execution over the last five years. To answer this question, obviously, it is required to know the meaning of contract and parties to the contract. 35. To address the first issue pertaining to clause 4.5.8 of SBD, it is required to know as to whether the present petitioner has any litigation or arbitration resulting from contract completed or under execution over the last five years. To answer this question, obviously, it is required to know the meaning of contract and parties to the contract. The word ‘contract’ referred in clause 4.5.8 of SBD undoubtedly relates to “an agreement enforceable by law.” Under general definition of condition of contract to the bidding document, the word ‘contract’ has been defined as under: “The contract is the contract between the employer and contractor to execute, complete and maintain the work till completion of defect liability period.” Therefore, after having referred to the ‘meaning’ of ‘contract’ as provided under section 2(h) of the Indian Contract Act, 1972, as well as ‘definition’ of ‘contract’ provided under general definition of condition of contract, it is clearly understood that the word ‘contract’ referred to in clause 4.5.8 relates to agreement enforceable by law signed between employer and contractor. Thus, the meaning of “any litigation or arbitration resulting from contract” referred to in clause 4.5.8, relates to dispute/litigation between the parties to the contract or employer and contractor arising out of contract agreement. In that view of the matter, in the instant case, the petitioner does not have any such litigation with any department resulting from any type of contract. Since the petitioner had no such litigation within the meaning and expression of clause 4.5.8 of the bid document, therefore, this court is of considered opinion that the petitioner has rightfully submitted his declaration dated 17.4.2017 by stating that he had no litigation with any department in connection with any contract. Hence, the declaration dated 17.4.2017 submitted by the petitioner, cannot be termed to be a false representation. 36. Furthermore, the purpose of technical evaluation is to judge the technical credential and capabilities of the bidder to ensure that the participant Firm has enough capacity to carry out the project effectively, if the project is awarded to it and also to ensure that there was no adverse antecedent on account of poor performance, abandoning the works or rescinding of contract, etc. and the purpose of technical bids evaluation is not to eliminate the Firm otherwise qualified and capable to carry out the project. and the purpose of technical bids evaluation is not to eliminate the Firm otherwise qualified and capable to carry out the project. The technical bids evaluation should not be used as a means to eliminate the otherwise qualified Firm by citing unsustainable and flimsy ground. The broad purpose of inviting tender is to conduct competitive bidding process so as to ensure that work can be awarded to the most qualified contractor at competitive price so that best quality work is get done at the most competitive price which shall be eventually beneficial to the State exchequer as well as the general public. 37. Now, let me, briefly, put-forth the views of this court on the decisions, referred to by the learned counsel for the respondents: (i) So far as the case of Jagdish Mandal (supra), and Bakshi Security and Personnel Service (P.) Ltd. (supra), as referred to by Mr. Ete is concerned, the same is to be construed as out-of-context inasmuch as the rejection of technical bids of the petitioner by citing the SBD clause which is otherwise not attracted to the case of petitioner, is not less than arbitrariness or unreasonableness. (ii) As regards the cases of Central Coalfields Ltd. (supra), and Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. (supra) so relied upon by Mr. Ete, the same does not help the case of the State respondents since the Apex Court has held that the word used in documents are not superfluous or redundant but same must be given some meaning and weightage. It has been in fact held that the word used in tender document cannot be ignored or treated as redundant or superfluous rather they must be given full meaning and their necessary significance. (iii) In respect of the case of M/s. Nayak Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. (supra) so relied upon by Mr. Apang, the same does not come into the aid of the case of respondent No. 4 as it appears to stand on a different footing. 38. I have also taken into consideration, the decisions of the Apex Court referred to by Mr. Tagum, learned counsel for the petitioner, in the cases of Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs. International Airport Authority of India, AIR 1979 SC 1628 , Food Corporation of India vs. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries, (1993) 1 SCC 71 and Maa Binda Express Carrier vs. North East Frontier Railway, (2014) 3 SCC 760 . 39. Tagum, learned counsel for the petitioner, in the cases of Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs. International Airport Authority of India, AIR 1979 SC 1628 , Food Corporation of India vs. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries, (1993) 1 SCC 71 and Maa Binda Express Carrier vs. North East Frontier Railway, (2014) 3 SCC 760 . 39. Now, let me take into consideration, this court's judgment and order dated 19.5.2017 passed in H.B. Enterprises vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh, WP (C) No. 107 (AP)/2017, which has been relied upon by Mr. Tagum, learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his case. It appears that the factual background of the said case is identical to the present case. In the above-cited case, the technical bids of the bidder was rejected by the TEC by citing certain provisions of the SBD, which was, later on, found to be unsustainable by this court. This court, while setting aside the rejection of technical bid of the petitioner, had further directed the TEC to open the financial bid of the petitioner and further allowed the same to participate in tender process. For effective disposal of the matter, at hand, relevant paragraph Nos. 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 25, of the said judgment and order, dated 19.5.2017, are quoted herein-below: “17. The purpose of inviting tenders is to conduct a competitive bidding process so as to ensure that the work can be awarded to the most qualified contractor at the competitive rate. For the said purpose, the employer undertakes the exercise of evaluating the bid so to assess the technical ability of the tenderers, in order to find out which of the qualified bidder is offering the most competitive price. 18. In the case in hand, I find that the grounds on which the technical bid of the petitioner was rejected was wholly arbitrary, Illegal and irrational in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The technical bid of the petitioner could not have been held to be non-responsive on the grounds mentioned in the minutes of the Technical Bid Evaluation Committee meeting. However, due to the rejection of the technical bid of the writ petitioner, its price bid was not opened as a result of which respondent-authorities had to accept the single bid of the respondent No. 8 on the basis of price quoted by it. 19. However, due to the rejection of the technical bid of the writ petitioner, its price bid was not opened as a result of which respondent-authorities had to accept the single bid of the respondent No. 8 on the basis of price quoted by it. 19. Law regarding award of Government contract is fairly well settled, in a number of Judicial pronouncements, the Supreme Court has held that in awarding Govt. contract, the State and its agencies have a duty to act in a fair and non-discriminatory manner. I do not wish to burden this judgment by quoting all those decisions. In the case of Maa Binda Express Carrier vs. North East Frontier Railway, (2014) 3 SCC 760 , the Supreme Court has observed that while awarding Government contract, the State must act reasonably and fairly at all point of time and to that extent, the tender will have an enforceable right. It is also settled law that in exercise of power of judicial review, the court will examine the decision making process so as to reach a satisfaction that the evaluation process is free from arbitrariness, irrationalities and is non-discriminatory in nature. 20. From the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the provision of section 4.6 of the ITB and section 4, Clause-XIII of SBD has been erroneously applied in the case of the writ petitioner so as reject its technical bids. 21. In view of what has been discussed above, it is held that rejection of technical bid of the petitioner was done in a completely arbitrary and illegal manner. Consequently, the letter of acceptance doted 9.3.2017 issued in favour of respondent No. 8 is held to be unsustainable and the same is accordingly set aside. 22. Since the price bid of the petitioner has not been opened yet and considering the fact that work under PMGSY Scheme has remained suspended due to the operation of interim order dated 14.3.2017 passed by this court, hence, I do not find any impediment to direct the respondents to open the price bid of the petitioner and thereafter, award a fresh Letter of Acceptance in favour of the L-1 bidder. The said recourse, in the opinion of this court, is not only called for in the interest of public at large but is also permissible in the fact and circumstances of the case, since the other two bidders, whose technical bids have been rejected, have not approached this court by filing any writ petition. 23. Before parting with the record, it is apposite to mention herein that Mr. D. Sold, learned Government Advocate, Arunachal Pradesh, has submitted that after the opening of the bids, the materials uploaded in the web-site gets automatically deleted and, therefore, re-assessment of the financial bid would not be possible. I am afraid, the said submission of the learned Government Advocate cannot be accepted primarily for two reasons. Firstly, as per the clause 5 of section I of the SBD for PMGSY, the Bidders are required to submit the hard copy of the documents up-loaded in support of their tender. Secondly, it cannot be accepted that the financial bid of the tenderers were not submitted in sealed cover besides uploading the same in the website 25. Since the court has already held that the rejection of the technical bid of the petitioner was illegal, hence, all that is required to be done in the present case is that the price bid of the petitioner be opened and thereafter, a fresh Letter of Acceptance be issued to Legality-1 bidder. There is no reason why the said exercise cannot be carried-out on the basis of the records available with the authorities.” 40. In view of what have been discussed above and also taking into consideration, the matter in its entirety, particularly, the judgment and order, dated 19.5.2017 so passed by this court in the case of H.B. Enterprises vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh, WP (C) No. 107 (AP)/2017, the court is of the considered view that the impugned: (i) minutes of technical bid evaluation, dated 15.6.2017, issued by respondent No. 5, viz. Technical Evaluation Committee (appended by respondent No. 4 as page No. 10, of ‘Annexure 1 series’ in the affidavit-in-opposition), (ii) notice of rejection issued under memo No. DD/DRG-10(CRF)/2017-18 dated 23.6.2017 and (iii) letter of rejection of technical bids of the petitioner issued by respondent No. 4, viz. Technical Evaluation Committee (appended by respondent No. 4 as page No. 10, of ‘Annexure 1 series’ in the affidavit-in-opposition), (ii) notice of rejection issued under memo No. DD/DRG-10(CRF)/2017-18 dated 23.6.2017 and (iii) letter of rejection of technical bids of the petitioner issued by respondent No. 4, viz. Executive Engineer, Doimukh PWD Division, Doimukh, under memo No. DD/DRG-1.0(CRF)/2017-18/269, dated 5.7.2017, have not been made/issued by the authorities) concerned, In accordance with law, and the same are accordingly hereby set aside and quashed. 41. As has been stated by Mr. Tagum, learned counsel, at the Bar, that financial bid of the writ petitioner is yet to be opened and also taking into account, the fact that tender process in respect of the work, in question, has been stayed till date, by the operation of this court's interim order dated 7.7.2017 so passed in the instant petition, this court is of the further considered view that appropriate direction, as prayed for by the petitioner with regard to opening of his financial bids, can be entertained at this stage. Situated, thus, the authorities concerned are hereby categorically directed to open the financial bids of the petitioner, viz. M/s. Tama Fabrication Works, A-Sector, Naharlagun, without any unnecessary delay and the authority shall, thereafter, award the Letter of Acceptance in favour of the L-1 bidder or other such most suitable responsive bidder, as per law. 42. The direction passed by this court, as stipulated hereinabove, shall be carried-out by the authorities concerned as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order which shall be furnished by the petitioner to the authority concerned within a period of one week from today. 43. For the foregoing reasons, the present writ petition stands allowed and the same shall accordingly stand disposed of. The interim order passed by this court, on 7.7.2017, shall stand merged with this order. 44. Parties shall bear their own cost. 45. The prayer as made by respondent No. 4, viz. Executive Engineer, Doimukh PWD Division, Doimukh, in the connected Interlocutory Application, viz. IA (WP) No. 124 (AP)/2017, seeking vacation/modification/alteration of this court's interim order, dated 7.7.2017, is thereby rejected and the said application accordingly stands dismissed. 46. Registry shall return the original records to the learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate, forthwith.