JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr. Hage Lampu, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. G. Tarak, Standing Counsel for the Rural Works Division and Mr. M. Kato, learned counsel for the private respondent No. 6. 2. The appellant has made a challenge to the judgment & order dated 21.06.2017, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 192(AP)/2017, by which the appellant''s writ petition, challenging the selection of the respondent No. 6 as the successful tenderer, has been rejected. 3. The appellant''s counsel submits that the appellant participated in the selection process for construction of various works in pursuance to the NIT dated 21.01.2017, which are as follows: wxyz (1) Package No. AR/14/06/017 name of the road from BRTF Road to Kaung zyxw wxyz (2) Package No. AR/14/06/019 name of the road from PWD road to Langrik zyxw wxyz (3) Package No. AR/14/06/020 name of the road from Leying to Majuriang zyxw wxyz (4) Package No. AR/14/06/021 name of the road from BRTF road to Leel. zyxw wxyz The present appeal relates to Package No. AR/14/06/019 with an estimated cost of Rs. 36,64.72crores.The appellant/writ petitioner''s technical bid had been rejected by the State respondents, as his bid did not conform to the terms and conditions, specifically Clause 4.2, 4.4A, 4.4B(a), 4.7, 3, 1.3.1 & 1.3.3 of the Standard Bidding Documents (SBD). zyxw wxyz He submits that though the respondent No. 6 was not eligible to participate in the selection process in view of the provisions of Arunachal Pradesh District Based Entrepreneurs and Professionals (Incentives, Development and Promotional), Act, 2015 and the rules framed thereunder, the respondent No. 6 had been selected as the successful tenderer for the quoted bid value of Rs. 36.6 crores in respect of Package No. AR/14/06/019. zyxw 4. The appellant''s counsel thus submits that the selection of the respondent No. 6 should be set aside. He also submits that the rejection of the appellant''s technical bid by the State respondents for the contract in question should be set aside, as the same was not justified. 5. The learned counsels for the respondents, on the other hand, submit that the appellant''s tender has been rejected as he did not fulfill the terms and conditions of the NIT and accordingly, the appellant does not have any ground to challenge the selection of the respondent No. 6 as the successful tenderer. 5. The learned counsels for the respondents, on the other hand, submit that the appellant''s tender has been rejected as he did not fulfill the terms and conditions of the NIT and accordingly, the appellant does not have any ground to challenge the selection of the respondent No. 6 as the successful tenderer. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 6 submits that at this stage 95% of the work has been completed and as such, it would not be justiciable to interfere with the development work that is going on. 6. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 7. On perusing the documents on record, we find that the appellant''s tender for Package No. AR/14/06/019, for construction of the road from PWD road to Langrik, had been rejected due to the petitioner not having fulfilled the term and condition Nos. 4.2, 4.4A, 4.4B(a), 4.7 & Section 3, 1.3.1 and 1.3.3. The terms and conditions/clauses, on the basis of which the appellant''s tender was disqualified, are reproduced below: wxyz "4.2 All bidders shall include the following information and documents with their bids in Section 3, Qualification Information unless otherwise stated in the Appendix to ITB: (g)evidence of access to line(s) of credit and availability of other financial resources/facilities (10 percent of the contract value) certified by banker (the certificate being not more than 3 months old). zyxw wxyz 4.4A To qualify for award of the contract, each bidder should have in the last five years: zyxw wxyz (b) Satisfactorily completed, as prime contractor or sub-contractor, atleast one similar work equal in value to one-third of the estimated cost of work (excluding maintenance cost for five years) for which the bid is invited, or such higher amount as may be specified in the appendix to ITB. The value of road work completed by the bidder under Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana in originally stipulated period of completion shall be counted as 120% for the purpose of this sub-clause. zyxw wxyz 4.4B(a) Each bidder must produce: (ii) An affidavit that the information furnished with the bid documents is correct in all respects: zyxw wxyz 4.7. The value of road work completed by the bidder under Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana in originally stipulated period of completion shall be counted as 120% for the purpose of this sub-clause. zyxw wxyz 4.4B(a) Each bidder must produce: (ii) An affidavit that the information furnished with the bid documents is correct in all respects: zyxw wxyz 4.7. Even though the bidder meets the above qualifying criteria, they are subject to be disqualified if they have: zyxw wxyz (i) made misleading or false representations in the forms, statements, affidavits and attachments submitted in proof of the qualification requirements "and/or And" zyxw wxyz Section 3-Qualification Information, zyxw wxyz 1. Individual Bidders zyxw wxyz 1.1 Constitution or legal status of Bidder zyxw wxyz Place of registration zyxw wxyz Principal place of business zyxw wxyz 1.2 Total annual volume of civil engineering construction work executed and payments received in the last five years preceding the year in which bids are invited. (Attach certificate from Chartered Accountant). zyxw wxyz Section 1.3.1- Work performed as prime Contractor (in the same name and style) on construction works of a similar nature and volume over last five years. Attach certificates from the Engineer-in-charge. zyxw wxyz Section 1.3.3- Information on Bid Capacity (works for which bids have been submitted and works which are yet to be completed) as on the date of this bid. zyxw 8. Term and condition No. 4.2 requires a tenderer to have financial resources/facilities @ 10% of the contract value, certified by a banker. In this respect, the appellant''s counsel has referred to the Certificate dated 27.01.2017, issued by the State Bank of India, Dimapur Bazar Branch, Dimapur, Nagaland, which certifies that the petitioner was having a cash credit limit of 4 crores and B.G limit of 50 lakhs, aggregating 4.5 crores. The Certificate also stated that if contract works with regard to the 4 Packages was awarded to the appellant''s firm, the Bank could enhance the credit facilities of the firm to the extent of 9 crores to meet their working requirements. wxyz The Certificate dated 27.01.2017 had been submitted by the appellant in respect of all the 4 Packages, which amounted to a total of Rs. 85.219 Crores. wxyz The Certificate dated 27.01.2017 had been submitted by the appellant in respect of all the 4 Packages, which amounted to a total of Rs. 85.219 Crores. As the appellant has submitted evidence of financial resources/facilities @ 10% of the contract value for all of the Packages, as required under Clause 4.2, we are of the view that the rejection of the appellant''s bid for non-compliance with Clause 4.2 could have been accepted. zyxw 9. Clause 4.4A requires the bidder to have satisfactorily completed, in the last 5 (five) years, at least 1 (one) similar work, equal in value to one-third of the estimated cost of the work. The appellant has in this regard brought our attention to the Completion Certificate dated 06.02.2017, issued by the Executive Engineer, PWD Division, Rungong, which shows that the petitioner had completed construction of a road, the cost of which was Rs. 17,19,35,620/-. The above Certificate seems to indicate that Clause 4.4A has been adhered to by the appellant. However, the State respondents have taken a stand that though the appellant has claimed satisfactory and successful completion of the work, the same is a false statement. As per the State respondents, the road construction in West Siang District, which is reflected in the Completion Certificate dated 06.02.2017 is still in progress and an ongoing project. Also, the work Completion Certificate is not as per the standard format, as contemplated under Clause 1.3.1 and 1.3.3 and Section 3 of the Standard Bidding Documents for PMGSY. The State respondents further stand is that the Completion Certificate submitted by the appellant with regard to the construction of road from Mite village of Upper Subansiri District Gogamukh in Assam was not issued by the Executive Engineer, Daporijo, PWD Division. As such, the appellant has been furnishing false and misleading proof of qualifications, required under Clause 4.7 of the Standard Bidding Documents (SBD). The differing stands taken by the parties show that there are disputed questions of fact. As such, we are not in a position to take a decision on this issue, as the said issue has to be decided by adducing evidence. At the same time, development works cannot be allowed to stand still on the above issue and we would have to give some leeway to the State respondents, by prima facie accepting their stand, unless proved otherwise. At the same time, development works cannot be allowed to stand still on the above issue and we would have to give some leeway to the State respondents, by prima facie accepting their stand, unless proved otherwise. Accordingly, we do not find any reason to differ with the view taken by the State respondents, which is to the effect that Clause 4.4A and 4.7 have not been complied with. 10. Clause 4.4B(a) requires that an affidavit should be furnished stating that the information given in the bid documents is correct in all respects. The affidavit that has been given by the appellant in terms of Clause 4.4B(a) has been made by Modern Engineering Enterprise, Army Supply Road, Dimapur, Nagaland. There is no name of the deponent of the affidavit or any particulars about the deponent of the said affidavit. Modern Engineering Enterprise is not a juristic person, but only a proprietary concern, as can be implied by the stamp "Proprietor" being reflected below a signature. This affidavit filed by the appellant in our view does not conform to the requirement of Clause 4.4B(a), as there is no particulars with regard to the proprietor/maker of the signature. 11. In the case of Raunaq International Ltd. v. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. & Others, (1999) 1 SCC 492 , the Apex Court was to decide whether the appellant fulfilled the qualifying criterion for implementation of the contract work. However, the challenger, the respondent, also did not fulfill the qualifying criterion. The Apex Court thus held "Therefore, any judicial relief at the instance of a party which does not fulfill the requisite criteria seems to be misplaced." 12. In the present case, the appellant''s tender having been rejected at the threshold due to non-compliance with the terms and conditions of the NIT, the appellant has no locus standi to challenge the selection of the respondent No. 6 as the successful tenderer. Further, as it is not disputed by the parties that the contract work has already started, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.