Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 592 (GAU)

Asean Agencies v. State of Arunachal Pradesh

2020-06-25

SONGKHUPCHUNG SERTO

body2020
JUDGMENT Songkhupchung Serto, J. - Heard Mr. J. Jini, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. S. Tapin, learned Sr. Govt. Advocate appearing for the State respondents. 2. This is a writ petition praying for quashing and setting aside the Cancellation order issued under Office Memo No. CEAP(CZ-B)/W-5/CRF/TS/2018-19/2267-68, dated 05.08.2019 by the Chief Engineer, (CZ-B), PWD, A.P., cancelling the Memorandum No. CEAP(CZ-B)/W-5/CRF/TS/2018- 19/3816-17, dated 17.09.2018, wherein, Kaying Township Road Network construction was splitted into 2(two) and following the same, 2(two) Notices Inviting Tenders under (NITs) No. EE/RUM/CRF/E-NIT/2019-20/02/03, dated 31.03.2019, were issued and the letter dated 05.08.2019 of the same Chief Engineer, issued under his Office Memo No. CEAP (CZ-B)/W-5/CRF/TS/2018- 19/2269-70 by which the cancellation was conveyed with a direction to the Superintending Engineer, Boleng Civil Circle-PWD to submit a single draft Notice Inviting Tender(NIT) for the same project (amalgamated now) to his office at the earliest for approval. And, praying for issuance of appropriate writ or direction directing the respondents to declare the result of the bids submitted in pursuance of the said 2(two) NITs. 3. In order to facilitate quick and easy implementation of the project for construction of Kaying Township Road Network under CRF, the Chief Engineer (CZ-B), PWD, Arunachal Pradesh, vide Office Memorandum No. CEAP (CZ-B)/W-5/CRE/TS/2018-19/3816-17, dated 17.09.2018 splitted the work into 2(two) packages; Package I and Package- II. Thereafter, two separate NITS for the two packages were notified as; NIT No. EE/RUM/CRF/E-NIT/2019-20/02, dated 15.07.2019, with the tender amount of Rs. 7,07,23,081/- (for the Package-I) and NIT No. EE/RUM/CRF/E-NIT/2019- 20/03 with a tender amount of Rs. 7,01,20,944/- (For the Package No. II). In the 2(two) NITs, only registered contractors of Class-II (Civil category) domiciled within the territorial jurisdiction of 32-Rumgong Assembly Constituency, Arunachal Pradesh were invited. However, the petitioner, herein, who is Class-I contractor but a domicile of the territorial jurisdiction of 32-Rumgong Assembly Constituency also submitted his bids for the two NITs on line. However, vide impugned Memorandum No. CEAP(CZ-B)/W-5/CRF/TS/2018-19/2267-68, dated 05.08.2019, issued by the same Chief Engineer, the Memorandum splitting the work into two and the two NITs were canceled. The Memorandum is reproduced herein below; Government of Arunachal Pradesh Public Works Department No. CEAP(CZ-B)/W-5/CRF/TS/2018-19/ Office of the Chief Engineer(CZ-B) PWD, A.P, Pasighat Dated/ / /2019 Memorandum In the interest of the work, the project splitted vide memo no. CEAP(CZ-B)/W- 5/CRF/TS/2018-19/3816-17 Dated 17/09/2018 are hereby stand cancelled. 1. The Memorandum is reproduced herein below; Government of Arunachal Pradesh Public Works Department No. CEAP(CZ-B)/W-5/CRF/TS/2018-19/ Office of the Chief Engineer(CZ-B) PWD, A.P, Pasighat Dated/ / /2019 Memorandum In the interest of the work, the project splitted vide memo no. CEAP(CZ-B)/W- 5/CRF/TS/2018-19/3816-17 Dated 17/09/2018 are hereby stand cancelled. 1. Package-I C/o Kaying township road network (5.50km) (SH: ch 0.00 to 2.428 km) Rs. 707.23 lakh 2. Package-I C/o Kaying township road network (5.50km) (SH: ch 2.428km to 4.856 km) Rs. 701.21 lakh Total Rs. 1408.44 lakh Sd/ (Er. Markar Bam) Chief Engineer (CZ-B), PWD, A.P., Pasighat. After the above Memorandum was issued, the Chief Engineer through his letter dated 05.08.2019 informed the Superintending Engineer, Boleng, Civil Circle, PWD and also directed him to submit a single draft Notice Inviting Tender(NIT) for the said project to his Office at the earliest, for approval. Being aggrieved by the actions taken, as stated above, the petitioner is before this Court challenging the above stated Memorandum and the letter and at the same time praying as stated above. 4. Mr. Jini, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the Schedule of the Arunachal Pradesh District Based Entrepreneurs and Professionals (Incentives, Development and Promotional) Act, 2015, in any contract work under the Government of Arunachal Pradesh costing Rs. 3 crore to Rs. 5 crore, only the registered contractors in Class-II category, domiciled within the territorial jurisdiction of the Assembly Constituency under which geographical jurisdiction the project is to be taken up, are eligible and in project above Rs. 5 crore and up to Rs. 10 crore, only registered contractors in Class-I category, who are domiciled within the territorial jurisdiction of the District within which the project is to be undertaken, are eligible. This is done in order to provide incentive and to ensure participation of District based entrepreneurs and professionals. Therefore, the 2(two) NITs whose values are more than Rs. 7 crore each, should have invited only contractors in Class-I category who are domiciled within the territorial jurisdiction of the District concerned and not Class-II contractors who are clearly barred by the Act. As such, being aggrieved, the petitioner approached the concerned authorities and submitted his complaint. The competent authorities on receipt of his complaint allowed him to submit his bids for the 2(two) works and they were accepted. Therefore, they are bound to consider his bids and declare the result. 5. Mr. As such, being aggrieved, the petitioner approached the concerned authorities and submitted his complaint. The competent authorities on receipt of his complaint allowed him to submit his bids for the 2(two) works and they were accepted. Therefore, they are bound to consider his bids and declare the result. 5. Mr. Jini also submitted that the act of the Chief Engineer in cancelling the Office Memo No. CEAP (CZ-B)/W-5/CRE/TS/2018-19/3816-1, dated 17.09.2018, is arbitrary and not based on any reason. Therefore, the Memorandum No. CEAP(CZ-B)/W-5/CRF/TS/2018-19/2267-68, dated 05.08.2019 by which the earlier Memorandum was cancelled is illegal and unreasonable, so it deserves to be quashed and set aside. Mr. Jini further submitted that as per the list of Class-II contractors published by the PWD, there is no Class-II contractor in that Assembly constituency and the authority who issued the 2(two) NITs was aware of the same, as such, instead of inviting Class-II contractors who are neither there nor eligible for the work he should have invited only contractors of Class-I, who are domiciled in that District, and that would have been in compliance with the provisions of The Arunachal Pradesh District Based Entrepreneurs and Professionals (Incentives, Development and Promotional) Act, 2015. 6. In support of his submissions stated above, Mr. Jini, learned counsel referred to the judgments of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the Case of; (i). Food Corporation of India -Versus- M/s Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries, (1993) 1 SCC 71 , (paragraph-7). (ii). State of Punjab -Versus- Bandeep Singh and Ors., (2016) 1 SCC 724 , (paragraph- 4 & 7) and, (iii). Tata Cellular -Versus- Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651 , (paragraph69 to 77). The relevant paragraphs of the judgments are reproduced herein below one after the other; (i). Food Corporation of India -Versus- M/s Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries, para-7. "7. In contractual sphere as in all other State actions, the State and all its instrumentalities have to conform to Article 14 of the Constitution of which nonarbitrariness is a significant facet. There is no unfettered discretion in public law : A public authority possesses powers only to use them for public good. This impose the duty to act fairly and to adopt a procedure which is ''fairplay in action''. There is no unfettered discretion in public law : A public authority possesses powers only to use them for public good. This impose the duty to act fairly and to adopt a procedure which is ''fairplay in action''. Due observance of this obligation as a part of good administration raises a reasonable or legitimate expectation in every citizen to be treated fairly in his interaction with the State and its instrumentalities, with this element forming a necessary component of the decision making process in all State actions. To satisfy this requirement of non-arbitrariness in a State action, it is, therefore, necessary to consider and give due weight to the reasonable or legitimate expectations of the persons likely to be affected by the decision or else that unfairness in the exercise of the power may amount to an abuse or excess of power apart from affecting the bona fides of the decision in a given case. The decision so made would be exposed to challenge on the ground of arbitrariness. Rule of law does not completely eliminate discretion in the exercise of power, as it is unrealistic, but provides for control of its exercise by judicial review." (ii). State of Punjab -Versus- Bandeep Singh and Ors., paragraph- 4 & 7. "4 There can be no gainsaying that every decision of an administrative or executive nature must be a composite and self sustaining one, in that it should contain all the reasons which prevailed on the official taking the decision to arrive at his conclusion. It is beyond cavil that any Authority cannot be permitted to travel beyond the stand adopted and expressed by it in the impugned action. If precedent is required for this proposition it can be found in the celebrated decision titled Mohinder Singh Gill v. The Chief Election Commissioner, of which the following paragraph deserves extraction: "8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose J. in Gordhandas Bhanji: (AIR p. 18, para 9): ''9. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose J. in Gordhandas Bhanji: (AIR p. 18, para 9): ''9. ....Public orders publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of Explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the acting and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself.'' Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older. .................... .................... " 7. The same principle was upheld more recently in Ram Kishun Vs. State of U.P. However, we must hasten to clarify that the Government does not have a carte blanche to take any decision it chooses to; it cannot take a capricious, arbitrary or prejudiced decision. Its decision must be informed and impregnated with reasons. This has already been discussed threadbare in several decisions of this Court, including in Sterling Computers Ltd. v. M & N Publications Ltd., Tata Cellular v. Union of India, Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd., B.S.N. Joshi & Sons Ltd. v. Nair Coal Services Ltd., Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa." (iii). Tata Cellular -Versus- Union of India, paragraph- 69 to 77. "69. A tender is an offer. It is something which invites and is communicated to notify acceptance. Broadly stated, the following are the requisites of a valid tender: 1. It must be unconditional. 2. Must be made at the proper place. 3. Must conform to the terms of obligation. 4. Must be made at the proper time. 5. Must be made in the proper form. 6. The person by whom the tender is made must be able and willing to perform his obligations. 7. There must be reasonable opportunity for inspection. 8. Tender must be made to the proper person. 9. It must be of full amount. 70. 4. Must be made at the proper time. 5. Must be made in the proper form. 6. The person by whom the tender is made must be able and willing to perform his obligations. 7. There must be reasonable opportunity for inspection. 8. Tender must be made to the proper person. 9. It must be of full amount. 70. It cannot be denied that the principles of judicial review would apply to the exercise of contractual powers by Government bodies in order to prevent arbitrariness or favoritism. However, it must be clearly stated that there are inherent limitations in exercise of that power of judicial review. Government is the guardian of the finances of the State. It is expected to protect the financial interest of the State. The right to refuse the lowest or any other tender is always available to the Government. But, the principles laid down in Article 14 of the Constitution have to be kept in view while accepting or refusing a tender. There can be no question of infringement of Article 14 if the Government tries to get the best person or the best quotation. The right to choose cannot be considered to be an arbitrary power. Of course, if the said power is exercised for any collateral purpose the exercise of that power will be struck down. 71. Judicial quest in administrative matters has been to find the right balance between the administrative discretion to decide matters whether contractual or political in nature or issues of social policy; thus they are not essentially justifiable and the need to remedy any unfairness. Such an unfairness is set right by judicial review. 72. Lord Scarman in Nottinghamshire County Council v. Secretary of State for the Environment, (1986) AC 240 (1986) 1 All ER 199 proclaimed : " ''Judicial review'' is a great weapon in the hands of the judges; but the judges must observe the constitutional limits set by our parliamentary system upon the exercise of this beneficial power." Commenting upon this Michael Supperstone and James Goudie in their work Judicial Review (1992 Edn.) at p. 16 say : "If anyone were prompted to dismiss this sage warning as a mere obiter dictum from the most radical member of the higher judiciary of recent times, and therefore to be treated as an idiosyncratic aberration, it has received the endorsement of the Law Lords generally. The words of Lord Scarman were echoed by Lord Bridge of Harwich, speaking on behalf of the Board when reversing an interventionist decision of the New Zealand Court of Appeal in Butcher v. Petrocorp Exploration Ltd. 18-3- 1991." 73. Observance of judicial restraint is currently the mood in England. The judicial power of review is exercised to rein in any unbridled executive functioning. The restraint has two contemporary manifestations. One is the ambit of judicial intervention; the other covers the scope of the court''s ability to quash an administrative decision on its merits. These restraints bear the hallmarks of judicial control over administrative action. 74. Judicial review is concerned with reviewing not the merits of the decision in support of which the application for judicial review is made, but the decision-making process itself. 75. In Chief Constable of the North Wales Police v. Evans, (1982) 3 AllER 141, 154 Lord Brightman said : "Judicial review, as the words imply, is not an appeal from a decision, but a review of the manner in which the decision was made. Judicial review is concerned, not with the decision, but with the decision-making process. Unless that restriction on the power of the court is observed, the court will in my view, under the guise of preventing the abuse of power, be itself guilty of usurping power." In the same case Lord Hailsham commented on the purpose of the remedy by way of judicial review under RSC, Ord. 53 in the following terms : "This remedy, vastly increased in extent, and rendered, over a long period in recent years, of infinitely more convenient access than that provided by the old prerogative writs and actions for a declaration, is intended to protect the individual against the abuse of power by a wide range of authorities, judicial, quasi-judicial, and, as would originally have been thought when I first practiced at the Bar, administrative. It is not intended to take away from those authorities the powers and discretions properly vested in them by law and to substitute the courts as the bodies making the decisions. It is not intended to take away from those authorities the powers and discretions properly vested in them by law and to substitute the courts as the bodies making the decisions. It is intended to see that the relevant authorities use their powers in a proper manner (p. 1160)." In R. v. Panel on Takeovers and Mergers, ex p Datafin plc, (1987) 1 AllER 564 , Sir John Donaldson, M.R. commented: "An application for judicial review is not an appeal." In Lonrho plc v. Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, (1989) 2 AllER 609 Lord Keith said: "Judicial review is a protection and not a weapon." It is thus different from an appeal. When hearing an appeal the Court is concerned with the merits of the decision under appeal. In Amin, Re ( Amin v. Entry Clearance Officer, (1983) 2 AllER 864 ) , Lord Fraser observed that : "Judicial review is concerned not with the merits of a decision but with the manner in which the decision was made.... Judicial review is entirely different from an ordinary appeal. It is made effective by the court quashing the administrative decision without substituting its own decision, and is to be contrasted with an appeal where the appellate tribunal substitutes its own decision on the merits for that of the administrative officer." 76. In R. v. Panel on Take-overs and Mergers, ex p in Guinness plc, (1990) 1 QB 146 : (1989) 1 All ER 509 , Lord Donaldson, M.R. referred to the judicial review jurisdiction as being supervisory or ''longstop'' jurisdiction. Unless that restriction on the power of the court is observed, the court will, under the guise of preventing the abuse of power, be itself guilty of usurping power. 77. The duty of the court is to confine itself to the question of legality. Its concern should be : 1. Whether a decision-making authority exceeded its powers? 2. Committed an error of law, 3. committed a breach of the rules of natural justice, 4. reached a decision which no reasonable tribunal would have reached or, 5. abused its powers. Therefore, it is not for the court to determine whether a particular policy or particular decision taken in the fulfillment of that policy is fair. It is only concerned with the manner in which those decisions have been taken. reached a decision which no reasonable tribunal would have reached or, 5. abused its powers. Therefore, it is not for the court to determine whether a particular policy or particular decision taken in the fulfillment of that policy is fair. It is only concerned with the manner in which those decisions have been taken. The extent of the duty to act fairly will vary from case to case. Shortly put, the grounds upon which an administrative action is subject to control by judicial review can be classified as under: (i) Illegality : This means the decision- maker must understand correctly the law that regulates his decision-making power and must give effect to it. (ii) Irrationality, namely, Wednesday unreasonableness. (iii) Procedural impropriety. The above are only the broad grounds but it does not rule out addition of further grounds in course of time. As a matter of fact, in R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex Brind28, Lord Diplock refers specifically to one development, namely, the possible recognition of the principle of proportionality. In all these cases the test to be adopted is that the court should, "consider whether something has gone wrong of a nature and degree which requires its intervention"." 7. Mr. S. Tapin, learned Sr. Govt. Advocate submitted that it is very clear from the 2(two) NITs that only Class-II contractors who are domiciles of the Assembly constituency concerned under which jurisdiction the township falls were invited to submit their bids. Therefore, even if the petitioner had submitted his bid in respect of the 2(two) NITs, they could not have been considered, since he belongs to the category of Class-I contractor. The learned Sr. Govt. Advocate also submitted that if the petitioner was of the opinion that instead of Class-II, Class-I contractors should have been invited in the 2(two) NITs, as per the Act, cited by him, he should have submitted a representation for cancellation or rectification of the 2(two) NITs and if his representation was not considered, he could have challenged the same in a proper forum. Since that did not happen, simply submitting his bids online would not give him a right to ask for consideration of his bids. 8. Mr. Since that did not happen, simply submitting his bids online would not give him a right to ask for consideration of his bids. 8. Mr. Tapin also submitted that when the petitioner challenged the validity of the 2(two) NITs on the ground of violation of the provisions of The Arunachal Pradesh District Based Entrepreneurs and Professionals (Incentives, Development and Promotional) Act, 2015, he cannot at the same time ask for consideration of his bids submitted in respect of the same NITs for that would amount to blowing hot and cold. Further, the learned Sr. Govt. Advocate submitted that to split or not to split a project is within the domain of the authority concerned - "the Chief Engineer of PWD" in this case, as authorised under 3.1.1.8 of CPWD works manual. And, the Chief Engineer has acted within the authority given, therefore, there is no illegality committed while issuing the impugned Memorandum No. CEAP(CZ-B)/W-5/CRF/TS/2018-19/2267-68, dated 05.08.2019. In continuation of his submission, the learned Sr. Govt. Advocate also submitted that the authority who issued the order for splitting work is also authorised to issue order cancelling the same. The provision of CPWD Works Manual, 2019 referred to by the learned Sr. Govt. Advocate is reproduced herein below; "3.1.1.8. Package for Accord of Technical Sanction It is upto the T/S Authority to combine various sanctions for the same work and issue a single Technical Sanction provided total of all sanctions for the same work fall under his/her competence. Similarly the competent T/S authority may, with recorded reasons, split any sanction falling within his/her competence keeping in view the requirements of the work. For each such package of a single sanction, Technical Sanction will be accorded by the same officer competent to accord T/S to the entire sanction." 9. Lastly, the learned Sr. Govt. Advocate submitted that the petitioner being Class-I contractor, as per The Arunachal Pradesh District Based Entrepreneurs and Professionals (Incentives, Development and Promotional) Act, 2015, he would be eligible to submit his bid even if the 2(two) packages under the same project are clubbed together and a single Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) is issued. Therefore, the petitioner really has no grievance. 10. Therefore, the petitioner really has no grievance. 10. From the submissions of both the learned counsels there are two issues to be decided in this case; (i) Whether the petitioner has a right to ask for consideration of the bids submitted for the two packages of the project following the issuance of the two NITs in question. (ii) Whether the Chief Engineer''s order issued under Memorandum No. CEAP(CZ-B/W5/CRF/TS/2018-19/2267-68, dated 05.08.2019, (impugned herein) cancelling earlier order issued under Memorandum No. CEAP(CZ-B/W/5/CRF/TS/2018-19/3816-17, dated 17.09.2019 which splitted Kaying Township Road Network Construction project under CRF into two packages is reasonable and justified. 11. On the first issue, what one needs to see is as to who are eligible to compete as per the two NITs. A mere glance on the NITs, particularly at the second line of the introduction one would see that it was only Class-II contractors who are domiciles of the 32-Rumgong Assembly Constituency who were invited to compete in the tenders. The petitioner being a Class-I contractor was clearly not eligible to compete in the tender. By mere acceptance of his bid documents would not, necessarily, make him eligible to compete in the tender. The fact that as per the Schedule of the Arunachal Pradesh District Based Entrepreneurs and Professionals (Incentives, Development and Promotional) Act, 2015, in contract work with the value of Rs. 5 crore to Rs. 10 crore, the eligible contractors are only those who belong to Class-I category and those who are domiciles of the district would not automatically make him eligible to compete in the two NITs unless the two NITs are either canceled or modified or rectified and now NITs are issued. It was for him to have ask for the same before he submitted his bid documents. Further, the fact that the officials or officers allowed him to submit his tender bids would also not confer him any right as the Officer or officials who accept the same could not have acted beyond the scope or ambit of the NITs. Because they are equally bound by the terms and conditions given in the two NITs. For the reasons stated above, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has no right to ask for consideration of his bid documents and declaration of the result thereof 12. Because they are equally bound by the terms and conditions given in the two NITs. For the reasons stated above, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has no right to ask for consideration of his bid documents and declaration of the result thereof 12. The introduction or preamble of the Arunachal Pradesh District Based Entrepreneurs and Professionals (Incentives, Development and Promotional) Act, 2015 and, the contents of section-3 of the Act and the Schedule prepared in accordance with the provision of that section and contents of section-4 are reproduced here below one after the other; "An Act to provide an incentive to ensure greater participation by district based entrepreneurs and professionals as a part of Government policy thereby facilitating decentralization of developmental activities with greater participation of people from nook and corners of the State of Arunachal Pradesh to build a society of people with uniform social and economical status in the State and matter connected therewith and incidental thereto;" "3. Preference to District Based Entrepreneurs and Professional : (1) The State Government shall, in its development and welfare Oriented projects in a district give preference to the district based entrepreneurs and professionals to secure equitable distribution of State Developmental work among different categories of entrepreneurs in project works upto or involving such amount as prescribed in the Schedule hereto. (2) The State Government may also lay down such other norms as may be prescribed in this behalf for effective implementation of promotional schemes. "SCHEDULE (See section 3 (1) Sl. No Cost of Works Eligibility of Contractor 1 Upto Rs. 50.00 lakh All registered contractors in Class V and IV categories domiciled within the territorial jurisdiction of Community Block. 2 Above Rs. 50.00 lakh and upto Rs. 1.00 crore All registered contractors in Class IV and Class III categories domiciled within the territorial jurisdiction of Assembly Constituency 3 Above Rs. 1.00 Crore and upto Rs. 3.00 crore All registered contractors in Class lll categories domiciled within the territorial jurisdiction of Assembly Constituency 4 Above Rs. 3.00 Crore and upto Rs. 5.00 crore All registered contractors in Class ll categories domiciled within the territorial jurisdiction of Assembly Constituency 5 Above Rs. 5.00 Crore and upto Rs. 10.00 crore All registered contractors in Class I categories domiciled within the territorial jurisdiction of the District 6 Above Rs. 3.00 Crore and upto Rs. 5.00 crore All registered contractors in Class ll categories domiciled within the territorial jurisdiction of Assembly Constituency 5 Above Rs. 5.00 Crore and upto Rs. 10.00 crore All registered contractors in Class I categories domiciled within the territorial jurisdiction of the District 6 Above Rs. 10.00 Crore All registered Contractors in Class-I and contractors eligible for National and International Competitive Bidding. (1) The State Government shall designate such officer or authority to evaluate and monitor implementation of the provisions of the Act to ensure greater participation by district based entrepreneurs and professionals and as a part of Government policy of ensuring decentralization of developmental activities and greater participation of people in all corners of the State. (2) The authority shall work for such period as may be provided by rule and it shall be the duty of the authority to suggest ways and means from time to time for implementation of the scheme under the Act." 13. The entire Act is consisted of only 5 sections. Section 5 of the Act confers the State Government the power to make rules for all or any of the provisions of the Act for carrying out the provisions of the Act. In the same year i.e 2015, the rule called "The Arunachal Pradesh District Based Entrepreneurs and Professionals (Incentives, Development and Promotional) Rules, 2015" was made and published. The rule provides the methods and procedures of selection of District Based Entrepreneurs and Professionals as per the provisions of section-3 and also provide the terms and conditions which must be fulfilled by the district based entrepreneurs and professionals to be eligible for participation in the tenders and the few exceptional circumstances under which participation in the tenders can be enlarge beyond the Assembly Constituency and the district. The rule also provides how the State Government in pursuance of the provisions of section-4 of the Act of 2015 has designated, the Chief Engineer, the Superintending Engineer of the concerned engineering zone to be the designated authority to evaluate and monitor the implementation of the Act and also to show how an officer of the concerned developmental work is to be designated as the authority to evaluate and monitor the implementation of the Act. Further, the Act also provides function of the designated authority at Rule-6. The contents of the Rule-6 reads as follows; "6. Further, the Act also provides function of the designated authority at Rule-6. The contents of the Rule-6 reads as follows; "6. Functions of the Designated Authority : (i) The designated authority shall be competent to call for reports/records from any work agencies pertaining to the activities which are covered by the said Act and issue necessary orders to that effect which shall be complied with by the concerned work agencies. (ii) The designated authority shall function on ex-officio basis and authority with existing supporting establishment under him." 14. A conjoint reading of the Act and the Rules shows that both the Act and the Rules were made to provide incentive and to ensure greater participation of the district based entrepreneurs and professionals in the developmental activities of the State with the larger objective to facilitate decentralizing developmental activities with greater participation of the people from all over the State and to build a society with uniform, social and economical status in the State. It also appears that the Act and the Rules were made following a conscious policy decision taken by the Government of the State. Towards making the noble vision a reality, developmental work for which contract work are to be awarded to entrepreneurs and professionals, the authority designated and empowered to call for the tenders and make the selection are to follow the norms given in the Schedule prepared as per the section 3(1) of the Act which has already been reproduced above. Without going into details Sl. No.4, 5 & 6 of the schedule which are relevant in this case may be referred to. It is provided at Sl. No. 4 of the schedule that any contract work which value is above Rs. 3 crore and upto Rs. 5 crore, only registered contractors in Class-II categories domiciled within the territory of the Assembly Constituency are eligible. However, in the event of adequate response from such contractors, the eligible contractors of adjacent block/assembly constituency within the district shall also be eligible to participate in the subsequent call of that tender (as per the clause-F of the Rule-3). Sl. No. 5 of the Schedule provides that for contract works which value is above Rs. 5 crore and upto Rs. 10 crore only registered contractors of Class-I categories domiciled within the territory of the district are eligible. Sl. No. 5 of the Schedule provides that for contract works which value is above Rs. 5 crore and upto Rs. 10 crore only registered contractors of Class-I categories domiciled within the territory of the district are eligible. However, in this case also in the event of inadequate response all eligible indigenous contractors of Arunachal Pradesh domiciled and registered under the Arunachal Pradesh contractors in Works Department Enlistment Rules, 2008 shall be eligible to participate in the subsequent call of that tender (as per the clause-G of Rule-3). Sl. No. 6 of the schedule provides that for contract work which value is above Rs. 10 crore all registered Class-I contractors and contractors eligible for national and international competitive bidding are eligible to participate in the tender. From the above, it would appear that the Act of 2015 and the rule framed there under are applicable only for contract work upto Rs. 10 crore only. 15. In this case, the project in question, i.e. Kaying Township Road Network is only 5.50 Kms in length and the project was splitted into two packages of Rs. 7,07,23,081/- and Rs. 7,01,20,944/- each by the Memorandum No. CEAP(CZ-B)/W-5/CRF/TS/2018-19/3816-17, dated 17.09.2018, issued by the Chief Engineer, (CZ-B), PWD, Arunachal Pradesh in order to facilitate quick and easy implementation of the single project. It appears from Rule-5 of the Arunachal Pradesh District Based Entrepreneurs and Professionals (Incentives, Development and Promotional) Rules, 2015 that as required under section-4 of the parent Act i.e. Act of 2015, the Chief Engineer and the Superintending Engineer of the concerned engineering zone were designated for evaluation and monitoring of implementation of the Act. Further, it also appears from the provisions of CPWD Work Manual, 2019, 3.1.1.8 that it is the Chief Engineer who is the competent authority to decide whether to split a project or to combine various sanctions for the same works and issue a single technical sanction provided total of all sanction works fall under his/her competence, but with reasons recorded. From the facts and circumstances and the provisions of the relevant laws stated, it can be concluded that the Chief Engineer concerned for the reasons stated in the memorandum had splitted the single project into two packages for quick and easy implementation and following such spilt, the two NITs were issued in exercise of his authority duty conferred under the law. However, it can be clearly seen that the two NITs were wrongly issued because values of the contract work of each of the package are above Rs. 5 crore. Therefore, only contractor of Class-I who are domiciled within the district should have been invited instead of Class-II contractors. Be that as it may, the Chief Engineer changed his mind later on and issued another Memorandum No. CEAP(CZ-B)/W-5/CRF/TS/2018-19/2267-68, dated 05.08.2019, (impugned herein) by which the earlier memorandum splitting the project into two packages was canceled in the interest of the work. Both the learned counsels are in agreement that the Chief Engineer has the authority to combine or to split the project and this Court also is in agreement with both the learned counsels, in view of the provisions of both the Act and the Rules and the CPWD Manual. Therefore, the only question left is whether the Chief Engineer''s decision was based on a valid reason or not. It appears from the project papers as indicated in the NITs that the total length of the road to be constructed under the project as stated already is only 5.50 Kms. Therefore, it is not such a magnitude of work that a single contractor of Class-I would not be able to handle it efficiently and effectively. Mobilization would be faster and co-ordination between the contractor and the department Engineers would be easier and better, therefore, execution of the work would be faster and also better monitored. In our common experience, when some projects are splitted into different packages and different contractors are engaged, the end results have not been encouraging, if not disastrous. The first thing one has to keep in mind is the interest of the work. The interest of the work is the paramount factor a decision maker has to take into consideration. In that sense, I find no reason to say that the decision of the Chief Engineer was unreasonable. He is the expert in the field with endowments of all the experiences earned through the past services. Therefore, his decision unless absurd on the face of it has to be respected or at least presumed to be taken in the interest of the work. To conclude, I am of the view that the decision of the Chief Engineer is based on reasonable reasons. Therefore, his decision unless absurd on the face of it has to be respected or at least presumed to be taken in the interest of the work. To conclude, I am of the view that the decision of the Chief Engineer is based on reasonable reasons. Before I part with the judgment, it may be mentioned here that the petitioner being Class-I contractor would still be eligible to participate even in the NIT to be issued as per the decision of the competent authority since the total value of the project would still permit him as per the Sl. No. 6 of the Schedule of the Act of 2015. Therefore, I am in agreement with the learned Sr. Government Advocate that the petitioner has no real grievance. In view of the discussions and conclusions drawn, I find no merit in the petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.