JUDGMENT : [Nani Tagia, J.] 1. Heard Mr. S. Tapin, learned Senior Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of the State-appellants. Also heard Mr. T. T. Tara, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and Mr. T. Jamoh, learned counsel for the respondent No.4. None appears for the respondents No.2 and 3. 2. Pursuant to the order dated 05.02.2022, the appellants have filed an additional-affidavit stating that a copy of the writ appeal was served to the respondent No.2, but Smti Yamam Talom, who is the proprietor of M/s Kbakt Enterprises refused to receive the copy of the appeal Memo. on 13.09.2022 and the same has been witnessed by two persons, namely, Shri Tom Lomtung and Shri Taram Tali. In the additional-affidavit filed, it has also been stated that a copy of the appeal Memo. has been served on respondent No.2 on 09.09.2022, which has been received by its proprietor Taja Tatin in his residence at Abotani colony, Itanagar. 3. In view of the above statement made by the appellants in the additionalaffidavit filed regarding the dasti service taken upon the respondents No.2 & 3, notice on respondents No.2 & 3 are deemed to be served. 4. This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 22.12.2021 passed in WP(C)63(AP)2021, whereby the appellants have been directed to furnish the tender papers to the respondents in respect of the NIT dated 15.02.2021, within a period of 1(one) week subject to payment of requisite fee and within 1(one) week thereafter, the respondents have been permitted to submit their bids, if so advised. 5. Respondents had filed WP(C)63(AP)2021 assailing the NIT dated 15.02.2021, issued by the Executive Engineer, Rumgong Division, PWD, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh inviting bids for construction of “ Drainage System and Soling-Mettaling of Holor Bine approach Road in Jomo village – 4.00 KM by PWD (Pgk-I)” at an estimated cost of Rs.99,49,000/-, contending that the DPR for the work was sanctioned at an estimated cost of Rs.150.00 lakhs (Rupees One crore fifty lakhs) only, but by splitting the work so as to bring it down to Rs.99,49,000/-, the respondents have not only acted in violation of the Office Memorandum dated 04.09.2021, which is the sanction letter of the project, but have acted in contravention of the Arunachal Pradesh District Based Entrepreneurs and Professionals (Incentives Development and Promotional) Rules, 2015. 6. 6. Upon hearing the learned counsels for the parties appearing in the writ petition and upon perusal of the rival pleadings made in the writ petition, the learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition vide the impugned order dated 22.12.2021, whereby the respondent authorities, the present appellants, were directed to furnish the tender papers in respect of the NIT dated 15.02.2021 to the writ petitioners within a week subject to payment of requisite fee and, thereafter, also permitted the writ petitioners/respondents herein to submit their bids. 7. The impugned order dated 22.12.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C)63(AP)2021 has been assailed by the appellants contending that in the NIT dated 15.02.2021, the last date for submission of the bid and the opening of the bid was 24.02.2021 and accordingly, the bid submitted was opened on 24.02.2021. The WP(C)63(AP)2021 was filed on 04.03.2021, by which date, the bids submitted pursuant to the NIT dated 15.02.2021 was already opened on 24.02.2021 as provided in the NIT itself. The WP(C)63(AP)2021 having been filed after the bid was already opened, the interim order passed on 04.03.2021 was only to the effect that the NIT dated 15.02.2021 shall remain suspended with no order restraining the respondents from opening the bid as the same had already been opened. 8. The appellants, therefore, contends that since the bids submitted pursuant to the NIT dated 15.02.2021 had already been opened on 24.02.2021 and the rates quoted by the bidder are already in the public domain, no useful purpose would be served if the petitioners in WP(C)63(AP)2021, the respondents herein, are furnished with the tender papers in respect of the NIT dated 15.02.2021 for their onward submission of the bids, inasmuch as, the respondents herein cannot now be allowed to submit their bids pursuant the NIT dated 15.02.2021 as the bids submitted by the other bidders have already been opened on 24.02.2021 and the rates quoted by the other bidders are in the public domain. In other word, the appellants contend that the direction passed by the learned Single Judge vide the order dated 22.12.2021 in WP(C)63(AP)2021 to furnish the tender papers to the respondents herein, for their onward submission of the bids in terms of the NIT dated 15.02.2021 is incapable of being implemented. 9. In other word, the appellants contend that the direction passed by the learned Single Judge vide the order dated 22.12.2021 in WP(C)63(AP)2021 to furnish the tender papers to the respondents herein, for their onward submission of the bids in terms of the NIT dated 15.02.2021 is incapable of being implemented. 9. Upon hearing the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the material made available on record, we find that in the NIT dated 15.02.2021 issued by the Executive Engineer, Rumgong Division, PWD, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh inviting bids for execution of work “ C/o Drainage System and Soling- Mettaling of Holor Bine approach Road in Jomo village – 4.00 KM by PWD (Pgk- I)”, the last date for submission of the bids as well as opening of the bids submitted was provided as 24.02.2021 in the NIT itself and accordingly, bids were opened on that day. The WP(C)63(AP)2021 challenging the NIT dated 15.02.2021 was filed subsequent to the opening of the bids submitted i.e., on 04.03.2021 and accordingly, there was no order passed by the Court in WP(C)63(AP)2021 restraining the respondents from opening the bids submitted pursuant to the NIT dated 15.02.2021. Accordingly, we are in the agrement with the contentions advanced by the appellants that the direction given by the learned Single Judge in the order dated 22.12.2021 passed in WP(C)63(AP)2021 is incapable of being implemented, inasmuch as, even if the tender papers is now furnished to the respondents in respect of the NIT dated 15.02.2021, the respondents cannot be permitted to submit their bids as the rates quoted by the other bidders is in the public domain pursuant to the opening of their bids on 24.02.2021 as provided in the NIT itself. 10. Accordingly, we interfere with the direction passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C)63(AP)2021, dated 22.12.2021 to the extent it had directed the respondent authorities, the appellants herein, to furnish tender papers in respect of the NIT dated 15.02.2021 to the writ petitioners/respondents herein to enable the respondents/writ petitioners to submit their bids. 11. The writ appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated above.