JUDGMENT : Vipin Sanghi, J. The present Special Appeal is directed against the order dated 07.12.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPMS No. 1254 of 2020. The said writ petition had been preferred by respondent No. 1-M/s Dalip Singh Adhikari, a Partnership Firm, through its Partner Dalip Singh Adhikari. The appellant was impleaded as respondent No.5 in the writ petition. The appellant was served and represented in the writ proceedings. Respondent No. 1/writ petitioner had preferred the said writ petition to seek quashing of the order dated 31.07.2020 passed by the Technical Evaluation Committee holding the writ petitioner as technically disqualified in respect of its bid submitted in response to the tender floated by the respondent authorities for Stage-II work for construction of ‘Padampuri Hairakhan Road Km. 54 Surya-Kaunta- Kakor-Harishtal (Hatyarital)’. The writ petitioner also sought a direction to the respondent authorities to open and operate its financial bid. The learned Single Judge allowed the said writ petition of respondent No.1. 2. The background, in which the writ petition came to be filed by respondent No. 1, may now be noticed. 3. On 25th January, 2020, the respondent authorities issued a notice inviting tender (NIT) i.e. Package No. UT 07-04, Stage-II, Padampuri to Harishtal. On 26.02.2020, four bidders participated in response to the said NIT. On 08.05.2020, the Technical Evaluation Committee evaluated the technical bids and declared the respondent-writ petitioner’s technical bid to be responsive. 4. It appears that there were certain complaints made by some of the bidders inter se. The Technical Evaluation Committee examined the complaint made by the appellant herein against respondent No. 1, and without notice to, or hearing respondent No. 1, declared its technical bid to be non-responsive on 26.05.2020. 5. The said decision, which was arrived at behind the back of the writ petitioner, was not communicated to it, and it was uploaded on the website of the Department only on 10.06.2020, when the financial bid opening was fixed on 11.06.2020. Thereby, there was hardly any time given to respondent-writ petitioner to respond to the declaration of its technical bid as non-responsive, after it being declared responsive, in the first instance, on 08.05.2020. The respondent authorities opened the financial bids of two bidders on 11.06.2020. 6. Respondent No. 1 sprang into action and challenged its being declared non-responsive on 26.05.2020 by filing WPMS No. 894 of 2020. The respondent authorities opened the financial bids of two bidders on 11.06.2020. 6. Respondent No. 1 sprang into action and challenged its being declared non-responsive on 26.05.2020 by filing WPMS No. 894 of 2020. That writ petition was allowed on 23.06.2020, and the declaration of the technical bid of respondent No.1 as non-responsive vide order dated 26.05.2020, was quashed. The respondent authorities were directed to re-examine the issue of the bid of respondent No. 1 being responsive, or non-responsive, after granting an opportunity to it to represent in the matter. Without granting any opportunity to respondent No. 1, the respondent authorities again declared the bid of respondent No. 1 as non-responsive on 03.07.2020. On 15.07.2020, being oblivious of the decision taken on 03.07.2020, respondent No. 1 sought information with regard to compliance of the directions issued by this Court in its judgment dated 23.06.2020. Only thereafter, on 27.07.2020, the Executive Engineer, for the first time, sought the comments of respondent No. 1 to the complaint made by the appellant. On 28.07.2020, respondent No. 1 filed its reply. On 31.07.2020, the respondent authorities reiterated the order dated 26.05.2020, thereby holding respondent No. 1 to be technically non-responsive. 7. However, this decision was again not uploaded immediately on the website of the respondent authorities, and it was uploaded only on 05.08.2020 in the afternoon. On the very next date, i.e. 06.08.2020, the respondent-writ petitioner prepared its writ petition, which was filed on 07.08.2020, and numbered as WPMS No. 1254 of 2020. Advance copies were served on the private respondent, i.e the appellant herein, who had filed a Caveat in the matter. Despite knowing the fact that respondent No.1 had preferred the aforesaid writ petition, the respondent authorities proceeded to issue the Work Order in favour of the appellant on 10.08.2020. WPMS No. 1254 of 2020 was listed for the first time before the Court on 10.08.2020. On that day, it was directed to be listed on 12.08.2020. On 12.08.2020, the matter was heard by another Bench. The writ petition was heard at the preliminary stage by the Court on 12.08.2020, and the hearing proceeded on 14.08.2020, 19.08.2020, and 21.08.2020. On 21.08.2020, the Court stayed the order dated 31.07.2020, whereby the writ petitioner was once again declared to be non-responsive. 8. On 12.08.2020, the matter was heard by another Bench. The writ petition was heard at the preliminary stage by the Court on 12.08.2020, and the hearing proceeded on 14.08.2020, 19.08.2020, and 21.08.2020. On 21.08.2020, the Court stayed the order dated 31.07.2020, whereby the writ petitioner was once again declared to be non-responsive. 8. At this stage, we may notice that on the same ground, on which the petitioner’s bid for the tender in question was declared to be non-responsive, its two other bids in relation to two other tenders were declared to be non-responsive. The said declarations were assailed by respondent No. 1 by filing WPMS Nos. 654 and 677 of 2020. On 18.11.2020, the said writ petitions were allowed, and it was held by the Court that the technical bid of respondent No. 1 could not be said to be non-responsive on account of there being difference in the identity of the partners as found in the Partnership Deed, and those found in the Registration Certificate. Respondent No. 1, thus, preferred an Urgency Application in the writ petition in question, which was allowed on 03.12.2020, and the writ petition was directed to be listed on 04.12.2020. On 04.12.2020, the writ petition was adjourned upon the request of the counsel for the contesting respondent. On 07.12.2020, the writ petition was heard and allowed by the Court by following the order passed in WPMS No. 677 of 2020. 9. A perusal of the impugned order shows that on that day, it was argued before the Court that the work order had already been issued in favour of the appellant herein, who was respondent No. 1 in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge, however, while passing the impugned order noticed the fact that the contract had been awarded to the appellant herein after filing of the writ petition. The learned Single Judge, therefore, followed the decision in WPMS No. 677 of 2020, and allowed the same in terms of the judgment dated 18.11.2020 passed in WPMS No. 677 of 2020. Consequently, the order challenged in the writ petition dated 31.07.2020-whereby the bid of respondent No. 1 was declared to be technically non-responsive, was quashed, and the respondent authorities were directed to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. 10. The submission of Mr. Consequently, the order challenged in the writ petition dated 31.07.2020-whereby the bid of respondent No. 1 was declared to be technically non-responsive, was quashed, and the respondent authorities were directed to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. 10. The submission of Mr. A.S. Rawat, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, is that the Work Order had been issued in favour of the appellant on 10.08.2020. On that day, there was no stay operating against the respondent Department for proceeding to award the contract to the qualified bidder. Further submission of Mr. Rawat is that the fact that the contract had been awarded to the appellant was duly notified on the official website, inasmuch, as, the Letter of Acceptance was issued in favour of the appellant on 06.08.2020, and the same was communicated to it on 07.08.2020, and the formal Work Order was issued in favour of the appellant on 10.08.2020. 11. Mr. Rawat submits that since respondent No. 1 was aware, or at least ought to have been aware of the award of the contract to the appellant, it was essential for respondent No. 1 to assail the said award of the contract in favour of the appellant. However, no challenge was raised by respondent No. 1 to the award of the contract to the appellant. He further submits that between 10.08.2020 and till the impugned judgment was rendered on 07.12.2020, the appellant had mobilized its men and heavy machinery, and executed the work and had incurred substantial expenditure in that process. According to the appellant, the appellant has also executed some amount of work. Thus, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the direction to the respondent authorities to proceed with the matter in accordance with law, was not justified. 12. In these proceedings, notice was issued by the Court on 30.12.2020. On 14.01.2021, this Court directed the respondent Department to stop the appellant from carrying-out any further work in the project till the next date. That interim direction is continuing to operate. On 06.06.2022, this Court directed the learned Deputy Advocate General to apprise this Court whether, in pursuance of the work contact dated 10.08.2020, the appellant had started execution of the work. 13. Pertinently, no affidavit has been filed by the State to answer this pointed query. That interim direction is continuing to operate. On 06.06.2022, this Court directed the learned Deputy Advocate General to apprise this Court whether, in pursuance of the work contact dated 10.08.2020, the appellant had started execution of the work. 13. Pertinently, no affidavit has been filed by the State to answer this pointed query. On the other hand, respondent No. 1 has filed a Supplementary Affidavit, whereby the respondent No. 1 has disclosed that in respect of the same Road, Stage-I contract was performed by respondent No. 1. Under the Stage-II contract, which is one in question, the metalling of the road had to be undertaken. 14. Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner points out that respondent No. 1 was required to maintain, and has been maintaining, the road in its present condition. Since then, the site is still being maintained by respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 has also brought on record inter- Departmental communications of the respondent authorities dated 13.09.2021 and 24.11.2021, wherein it is stated that on account of the pendency of the proceedings in this Court, Stage-II work has not been started. Respondent No. 1 has also placed on record the documents to show the payments being received by it towards maintenance of the road, in question, after completion of Stage-I work. 15. The respondent authorities are supporting the present Appeal preferred by the appellant. The contest is obviously being raised by respondent No. 1. 16. Mr. Saharia submits that the entire chronology of events clearly shows that the endeavour of the respondent authorities was to somehow remove respondent No. 1 from competition. The declaration of respondent No. 1’s technical bid to be non-responsive was made behind the back of respondent No.1, firstly on 26.05.2020, even though respondent No. 1 had earlier been declared as technically qualified on 08.05.2020. The decision dated 26.05.2020 was not uploaded and communicated to respondent No. 1 till as late as on 10.06.2020 when the financial bid opening was slated for 11.06.2020. The endeavour was to beat the respondent No.1 in time, and to prevent him from taking any steps, and to present a fait accompli. On 11.06.2020, only two financial bids were opened and that of respondent No. 1 was not opened. The decision to declare respondent No. 1 as disqualified was challenged before this Court in WPMS No. 894 of 2020, which was allowed on 23.06.2020. On 11.06.2020, only two financial bids were opened and that of respondent No. 1 was not opened. The decision to declare respondent No. 1 as disqualified was challenged before this Court in WPMS No. 894 of 2020, which was allowed on 23.06.2020. On 03.07.2020, once again, behind the back of respondent No. 1, the same set of officers serving as Executive Engineer and Superintending Engineer reiterated the disqualification of respondent No.1 without hearing respondent No. 1 or communicating their decision. Only when respondent No. 1 raised a query with regard to its representation made in terms of the order dated 23.06.2020 passed in WPMS No. 894 of 2020, respondent No. 1 was asked to furnish its comments against the representation made by the appellant. After receiving the representation of respondent No. 1, respondent authorities again declared the technical bid of respondent No. 1 as non-responsive on 31.07.2020, and this decision was not uploaded on the same day or even on the following day, but only on 05.08.2020. The writ petition challenging the decision dated 31.07.2020 was prepared on 06.08.2020, and filed on 07.08.2020 after serving the respondents, including the private respondent-who is the appellant herein, and who had preferred a Caveat. Thus, it is clear that the appellant was conscious of the fact that respondent No.1 was pursuing its rights and the appellant also apprehended that a fresh petition may be filed by respondent No. 1 against the decision dated 31.07.2020. Even though the writ petition had been served on all the respondents, they proceeded to exchange correspondence, namely the Letter of Acceptance, the Letter of Intent, and the Letter of Award of the contract between 06.08.2020 and 10.08.2020. 17. Mr. Saharia has submitted that neither the respondent authorities, nor the appellant-who was respondent No. 5 even whispered before the Court when the writ petition was pending, that the contract had been awarded in favour of the appellant, or that the appellant had already started execution of the contract. 18. Mr. Saharia points out that this submission was advanced, for the first time, on 07.12.2020 when the writ petition was heard by the learned Single Judge, and the order was dictated in the Court. 19. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsels, and we are of the view that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge does not call for any interference. 19. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsels, and we are of the view that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge does not call for any interference. The sequence of facts and events taken note of hereinabove shows a clear pattern emerging, and leave no manner of doubt in our mind that the respondent authorities, in particular, the Executive Engineer and the Superintending Engineer concerned repeatedly attempted to placate respondent No. 1 to somehow trip the said respondent out of race, so as to favour the appellant. After having declared the technical bid of respondent No. 1 as responsive on 08.05.2020, on the basis of the complaint of the appellant, respondent No.1’s technical bid was declared non-responsive on 26.05.2020 very secretively without putting respondent No. 1 to any notice much less granting a hearing to it. Even this decision was uploaded on the website of the Department only on 10.06.2020, just one day before the date fixed for financial bid opening, i.e. 11.06.2020. The respondent authorities opened the financial bids of other two bidders, including the appellant on 11.06.2020. Respondent No. 1 did not give up the race, and preferred Writ Petition (M/S) No. 894 of 2020, which was allowed on 23.06.2020, and the declaration of the technical bid of respondent No. 1 as non-responsive was quashed. The respondent authorities were directed to re-examine the issue with regard to the technical bid of respondent No. 1 being responsive, or otherwise, after granting an opportunity to it to represent. In breach of the said direction, the technical bid of respondent No. 1 was again declared as non-responsive on 03.07.2020 without any notice or hearing to respondent No. 1. Only when respondent No. 1 made inquiries on 15.07.2020, the Executive Engineer sought the comments of respondent No. 1 on 27.07.2020. Once again on 31.07.2020, the respondent authorities reiterated their decision to declare the technical bid of respondent No. 1 as non-responsive without assigning any reason. Even this decision was not uploaded till 05.08.2020. Once again, the respondent-writ petitioner preferred Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1254 of 2020, advance copies whereof were served on the appellant and the official respondents. Despite being aware of the filing of the said writ petition by respondent No. 1, the respondent authorities proceeded to issue the work-order in favour of the appellant on 10.08.2020. Once again, the respondent-writ petitioner preferred Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1254 of 2020, advance copies whereof were served on the appellant and the official respondents. Despite being aware of the filing of the said writ petition by respondent No. 1, the respondent authorities proceeded to issue the work-order in favour of the appellant on 10.08.2020. Thus, the respondent authorities were hell-bent on awarding the contract to the appellant. It is also pertinent to note that despite the pointed direction issued to the respondent authorities to state whether the appellant had carried out any work under the contract awarded to it, no categorical stand was taken by the respondent authorities. Respondent No. 1 has, however, established on record that, in fact, the appellant had not started the work and, in fact, could not have started the work. Thus, the submission of the appellant that it would be prejudice has absolutely no merit. Even otherwise, the collusion between the appellant and the respondent authorities is writ large, and a party, which has acted in a collusive manner, cannot be heard in equity to claim that it would suffer adverse financial consequences, if the financial bid of respondent No. 1 is directed to be opened. So far as respondent No. 1 is concerned, it is clear that it has acted with utmost dispatch, and it cannot be accused of causing any delay or laches in pursuing its judicial remedies. To deny the relief to respondent No. 1, as granted by the learned Single Judge, would cause travesty of justice as the machination of the appellant and the respondent authorities to somehow oust respondent No. 1 would then succeed. We cannot permit this to happen. 20. We direct the respondent authorities to forthwith proceed to open the financial bid of respondent No. 1 and, thereafter, proceed in the matter. In case the financial bid of the appellant is found to be the lowest, the appellant shall forthwith commence execution of the contract. However, in case the financial bid of respondent No. 1 is found to be the lowest, the respondent authorities are directed to proceed in accordance with law, without any further delay. 21. The pendency of these proceedings has delayed the execution of the contract by two years and in public interest, the work should be undertaken with expedition. However, in case the financial bid of respondent No. 1 is found to be the lowest, the respondent authorities are directed to proceed in accordance with law, without any further delay. 21. The pendency of these proceedings has delayed the execution of the contract by two years and in public interest, the work should be undertaken with expedition. We also direct the Secretary, Public Works Department in the Government of Uttarakhand to have the conduct of the Executive Engineer and the Superintending Engineer concerned examined from the point of view, whether they have acted in accordance with the rules and, if not, the action that needs to be taken against them for causing disruption of public works, which may also have adverse financial implications for the State. 22. The Appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.