JUDGMENT : Heard Ms. Neiteo Koza, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Imti Imsong, learned Addl. Advocate General for the State respondent No. 1 to 5. Also heard Mr. C.T Jamir, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. I. Imchen for the respondent No.6. 2. The present petition has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus/certiorari or any appropriate writs for quashing and setting aside the Work Order No. CAWD/TRSY/2019-2020 (CHOZUBA) dated 05/10/2021 issued by the Executive Engineer (CAWD), Office of the Commissioner Nagaland, Kohima, allotting the work for construction of Sub-Treasury Office with Bank at Chozuba under Phek District to the respondent No. 6. 3. The facts of the case as can be gathered from the submissions and pleadings of the parties is that vide the letter No. FIN/TA/GEN/5-181/20 dated 28/05/2021 written by the Government of Nagaland, Finance Department (Treasuries & Accounts Branch) to the Principal Director, Directorate of Treasuries & Accounts, Nagaland, Kohima (respondent No.2), the administrative approval for construction of the Sub-Treasury Office building with SBI Branch at Chozuba under Phek District amounting to Rs. 2,97,26,285/-was sanctioned by the Finance Department with the clearance of the Planning & Co-ordination Department. The work was accordingly awarded to the respondent No.6 by issuing the work order dated 05/10/2021 stipulating the terms and conditions of the contract. 4. Impugning the work order dated 05/10/2021, Ms. Neiteo Koza, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) was floated by the respondent authorities before awarding the work to the respondent No. 6 but the work was discreetly awarded to the said respondent by depriving the petitioner and others who had submitted their letters of interest to execute the work. Ms. Neiteo Koza submitted that the petitioner has been facilitating the sanctioning of the project considering that the Office proposed to be constructed was running from a rented house. It is submitted that pursuant to the Government conveying the administrative approval according sanction for construction of the work, the petitioner wrote the letter dated Nil to the respondent No.2 for allotment of the work. The respondent No.2 in turn by letter dated 22/10/2021 forwarded the application submitted by the petitioner to the Executive Engineer Estate Division, PWD (Housing), Kohima for necessary action. The respondent No.2 in turn by letter dated 22/10/2021 forwarded the application submitted by the petitioner to the Executive Engineer Estate Division, PWD (Housing), Kohima for necessary action. The case of the petitioner for allotment of the work was also supported by the Phesao clan of Chozuba-Yoruba village, the landowners of the proposed site, through the representation dated Nil addressed to the respondent No.2. Ms. Neiteo Koza, the learned counsel for the petitioner has then taken this Court to the order dated 17/08/2017 and submits that in view of the re-structuring of the civil works under the respondent No.3 and CAWD, it has been decided that the respondent No.3 will look after the civil works of different department including that of the Treasuries & Accounts and therefore, it is the respondent No.3 and not the respondent No.5 who is the competent authority to allocate the work and therefore, the work order dated 05/10/2021 issued by the respondent No.5 to the respondent No. 6 is without authority and ex-facie illegal. The learned counsel has further referred to the “Manual for Procurement of Works’’ (Updated June 2022), issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance Department of Expenditure, more particularly to Chapter-1 of the said Manual which inter-alia provides Introduction to Procurement of Works and also to the General Financial Rules 2007 more particularly to Rule 136(1) which provides that no works shall be commenced or liability incurred unless the conditions specified in the rule has been fulfilled. It is the case of the petitioner that none of the conditions provided for, in the Manual and the rule has been complied with before allotting the work to the respondent No.6. 5. In support of her submission, Ms. Neiteo Koza has relied in the case of Nagar Nigam Meerut -versus-AL Faheem Meat Export (P) Ltd. & Others, reported in (2006) 13 SCC 382, to contend that contracts by the State, its co-operation, instrumentalities and agencies must be normally granted through public auction/public tender by inviting tenders from eligible persons and the notification of the public auction or inviting tenders should be advertised in well-known dailies having wide circulation in the locality with all relevant details such as date, time and place of auction, subject matter of the auction, technical specifications, estimate cost, earnest money etc. The award of Government contracts through public auction/public tender is to ensure transparency in pubic procurement, to promote healthy competition among the tenderers, to provide for fair and equitable treatment of all tenderer and to eliminate irregularities, interference and corrupt practices by the authority concerned. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied in the case of Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. -versus-State of Karnataka & Others, reported in (2012) 8 SCC 216 , to buttress the point that though ordinarily, the soundness of the decision taken by the State respondents ought not to be questioned but the decision making process can certainly be subject to judicial review if it is irrational or malafide or intended to favour someone or a decision ‘that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could have reached.’ 6. Mr. C.T. Jamir, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the respondent No. 6 at the outset raises preliminary objection on the maintainability of the writ petition by submitting that as the petitioner did not participate in the tendering process which was duly published in the notice board of CAWD (Civil Administration Works Division) Office Kohima, no fundamental or legal rights of the petitioner has been violated. It is also submitted that as the petitioner has not impugned the NIT dated 24/08/2021 but only the work order dated 05/10/2021, no relief can be sought for issuance of a fresh NIT without first setting aside the NIT dated 24/08/2021. Furthermore, it is submitted that there is a delay of 11 (eleven) months and 13 days in filing the instant writ petition and the respondent No.6 having already executed about 42% of the work, it may not be in the public interest to stop the work at this juncture by cancelling the work order dated 05/10/2021. 7. On merit, the learned Sr. counsel for the respondent No. 6 submits that the NIT dated 24/08/2021 was duly published in the notice board of the CAWD, Office, Kohima after complying with the due process of law and 3(three) firms including the petitioner participate in the tendering process and the respondent No. 6 having quoted the lowest rate at 30.58% above NPWD SOR 2016 was selected and allotted the work by issuing the work order dated 05/10/2021. Mr. Mr. C.T. Jamir also submits that the representation dated 01/10/2021 submitted by the petitioner to the respondent No. 2 to allot the work in their favour and the letter issued by the Phesao clan to allot the work in favour of the petitioner by itself, infers, that the petitioner were compelling the respondent authorities to allocate the work to the petitioner thereby clearly demonstrating that the petitioner was resorting to wrong and improper means to obtain the work in their favour. Insofar as withholding of the project is concerned, Mr. C.T. Jamir submits that as there was certain confusion as to whether it was the E.E CAWD or the E.E Estate Division (Housing) Kohima which was the in-charge department to carry out the work that resulted in halting the project, the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Finance Department, forwarded the letter dated 11/04/2022 to the respondent No. 2 conveying the approval of the Government to allow the CAWD to complete the work for construction of the Sub-Treasury Office with SBI at Chozuba and consequent to which the respondent No.2 by the letter dated 19/05/2022 forwarded the Government’s letter dated 11/04/2022 to the respondent No. 5. The respondent No. 5 upon receiving the letter from the respondent No. 2 wrote the letter dated 02/06/2022 to the respondent No. 6 to resume the work. Mr. C.T. Jamir, the learned Sr. counsel therefore submits that the work was allotted to the respondent No. 6 by the competent authority and the petitioner cannot therefore be allowed to raise such an issue after the Government has resolved the confusion leading to the stoppage of the work for some time. 8. Mr. Imti Imsong, the learned Addl. Advocate General for the State respondents while subscribing to the submission made by the learned Sr. counsel for the respondent No.6 submits that consequent to the Government conveying the administrative approval for the work, the respondent No.2 forwarded the Government Approval to the respondent No. 5 with a request to intimate the allotment of the work to the Office of the respondent No.2. counsel for the respondent No.6 submits that consequent to the Government conveying the administrative approval for the work, the respondent No.2 forwarded the Government Approval to the respondent No. 5 with a request to intimate the allotment of the work to the Office of the respondent No.2. The respondent No. 5 thereafter by the letter dated 16/08/2021 submitted the draft NIT dated 16/08/2021 to the respondent No.3 for approval and consequent to which the Sub-Divisional Officer (TC) in the Office of the respondent No.3 wrote the letter dated 23/08/2021 to the respondent No. 5 approving the draft NIT for the said work. The tender date was accordingly fixed on 03/09/2021 and the respondent No.5 was informed that the tender shall be scrutinized by the ‘Bid Evaluation Committee’ constituted by the respondent No.3 vide order dated 29/06/2021. The respondent No.5 thereafter as instructed, issued the NIT dated 24/08/2021 stipulating therein that the tender will be received in the Office of the Executive Engineer (CAWD), Commissioner’s Office, Kohima, Nagaland upto 1:00 P.M. on 03/09/2021 and opened the same day in the presence of the tenderers/representatives. In response to the NIT, 3(three) firms namely, the respondent No.6, M/s Hills Pioneer Agency and M/s Ringa Enterprise submitted their tenders for the work. The Committee after evaluating the tenders prepared the comparative statements and submitted the same to the respondent No.3 by the letter dated 03/09/2021 for approval. The Sub-Divisional Office (TC) in the Office of the respondent No.3 thereafter by the letter dated 04/10/2021 address to the respondent No.5 conveyed the approval of the contract in favour of the respondent No.6 who quoted the lowest rate @30.58% above NPWD SOR 2016. It was only thereafter that the respondent No.5 issued the work order dated 05/10/2021 to the respondent No.6. The learned Addl. Advocate General accordingly submits that the petitioner has no right to assail the work order dated 05/10/2021 as the petitioner did not participate in the NIT and as the work order was allotted to the respondent No.6 by the competent authority after duly complying with the tender process. 9. The learned Addl. Advocate General accordingly submits that the petitioner has no right to assail the work order dated 05/10/2021 as the petitioner did not participate in the NIT and as the work order was allotted to the respondent No.6 by the competent authority after duly complying with the tender process. 9. In the affidavit-in-reply to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 6, the learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the averments made in the writ petition has once again submitted that no NIT was issued for the work and even assuming that it was issued, it was pasted only in the Notice Board of the CAWD but not advertised as mandated by law. While in the affidavit-in-reply to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the official respondent No. 3, the petitioner has made serious allegation that the State’s counsel for the respondent No.3 has filed the affidavit-in-opposition without the knowledge and consent of the respondent No. 3 by forging and affixing the signature of the respondent No.3 in the affidavit. This, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits is a criminal offence punishable under the law. In order to ascertain the veracity of the allegation made by the petitioner, this Court on 01.03.2023 directed the learned Addl. Advocate General as well as the respondent No.3 to file separate affidavit clarifying the allegations made by the petitioner in the reply affidavit. As directed by this Court both the learned Addl. Advocate General as well as the respondent No.3 has filed their respective affidavits on 09.03.2023 vehemently denying the allegations made by the petitioner in the affidavit-in-reply. The learned Addl. Advocate General in his affidavit has stated that the allegations made by the petitioner is utterly false, baseless and unsubstantiated and it is the petitioner who is guilty of making false statement and filing false affidavits. While the respondent No.3 in his affidavit has categorically stated that the affidavit-in-opposition was signed and sworn by him and the same was filed by the Addl. Advocate General with the knowledge of the deponent. 10. One thing which emerges in the case is that the NIT dated 24/08/2021 was issued by the respondent No. 5 for the construction of the Sub-Treasury Office with Bank at Chozuba under Phek district. Advocate General with the knowledge of the deponent. 10. One thing which emerges in the case is that the NIT dated 24/08/2021 was issued by the respondent No. 5 for the construction of the Sub-Treasury Office with Bank at Chozuba under Phek district. Three firms including the respondent No. 6 participated in the tendering process in which the respondent No. 6 who quoted the lowest rate @30.58% above NPWD SOR 2016 came out successful. It is however in the own admission of the respondent No. 6 that the NIT dated 24/08/2021 was notified only in the Notice Board of the CAWD (Civil Administration Works Division) Office, Kohima. It can therefore be safely inferred that the NIT dated 24/08/2021 was not given wide publicity in the media having wide circulation in the State. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the NIT in relation to the work was never issued and even if issued was not advertised as mandated by law thereby depriving other eligible tenderers to participate in the tendering process is to be accepted. The preliminary objection therefore raise by the respondents that the petitioner are not person aggrieved in law as they have not participated in the tendering process, or there is suppression of facts since the work order dated 05/10/2021 was awarded to the respondent No. 6 only after notifying the NIT dated 24/08/2021 or that as the petitioner has not challenged the NIT dated 24/08/2021, the impugned work order dated 05/10/2021 cannot be challenged is not accepted by this Court. 11. It is however a fact that the petitioners themselves had approached the respondent No.2 for allotment of the work in question and had even utilized the service of the landowners to impress upon the authorities to award the work to the petitioner. This is in the own admission of the petitioners and is evident by the letter dated Nil written by the petitioner to the respondent No.2 for allotment of the work in question and by the letter dated Nil written by the Chairman of the Phesao’s clan Yoruba village to allow the petitioner to execute the work and the letter dated 22/10/2021 written by the respondent No.2 to the respondent No. 5 for further necessary action on the application submitted by the petitioners which are all part of annexures in the writ petition. The letter’s by itself demonstrates that the petitioners were approaching the authorities to get the allotment of the work in their favour to the exclusion of the other eligible tenderers. Since the petitioners themselves were taking recourse to means to avail the work to the exclusion of others, it ill behoves the petitioners to now decry that no NIT was issued for the work and even if issued was not advertised as mandated by law. 12. On the allegation made by the petitioners that the respondent No. 5 is not the competent authority to issue the work order dated 05/10/2021, this Court has perused the letter dated 02/12/2021 written by the respondent No. 2 asking the respondent No. 5 to withhold the execution of the work till further instructions are received from the Government. It is seen that consequent to the said letter the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Finance Department (Treasuries & Accounts Branch) has forwarded the letter dated 11/04/2022 to the respondent No. 2 conveying the approval of the Government to allow the CAWD to complete the construction of the Sub-Treasury Office with SBI at Chozuba and pursuant thereto the respondent No. 2 has written the letter dated 13/05/2022 informing the respondent No. 5 of the Government’s approval and to accordingly take necessary action. The respondent No. 5 has thereafter written the letter dated 02/06/2022 to the respondent No. 6 to resume the construction of the work and to complete the same within the time specified in the work order. It is therefore very obvious that the work order dated 05/10/2021 was issued by the competent authority (i.e. respondent No. 5) to the respondent No. 6. The contention of the petitioner that the work order was issued by an authority not competent to do so is therefore rejected. 13. Furthermore, this Court has also taken note of the fact that the respondent No. 3 in its affidavit has stated that the respondent No. 6 has completed nearly 50% of the work whereas, the respondent No.6 in its affidavit has stated that approximately 42% of the work has been executed. The respondent No.6 further in the I.A(C) No. 198/2022 filed for modification/vacation/alteration of the interim order dated 30/09/2022 passed by this Court in the writ petition has enclosed the photograph showing the completion of the work as averred. The respondent No.6 further in the I.A(C) No. 198/2022 filed for modification/vacation/alteration of the interim order dated 30/09/2022 passed by this Court in the writ petition has enclosed the photograph showing the completion of the work as averred. The petitioners have not filed any affidavit specifically denying the completion of the work as contended by the respondents. On the other hand, the petitioner in the writ petition has clearly averred that it was in the month of July, 2022 that the petitioner came to know that the work in question was being executed by the respondent No. 6. The petitioners accordingly submitted the complaint dated Nil to the respondent No.2 to stop the work. In response to the complaint, the respondent No. 2 wrote the letter dated 04/08/2022 to the respondent No. 5 to ascertain as to whether all the norms and procedures were fulfilled to allow the respondent No.6 to undertake the work. There was however no direction either from the respondent No.2 or from any other authority to the respondent No. 6 to stop the work. It was only by the interim order dated 30/09/2022 passed by this Court that the work order dated 05/10/2021 issued to the respondent No. 6 was suspended till the next returnable date. It may also be noteworthy to mention that consequent to the issuance of the work order dated 05/10/2021 there was some confusion as to whether it was the respondent No. 3 or the respondent No. 5 under whom the construction was to be carried out. The respondent No. 2 therefore wrote the letter dated 02/12/2021 to the respondent No. 5 to withhold the execution of the work till further instruction was received from the Government. The Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Finance Department thereafter wrote the letter dated 11/04/2022 to the respondent No. 2 conveying the approval of the Government to allow the respondent No. 5 to oversee the construction of the work and consequent to which the respondent No. 2 conveyed the approval of the Government to the respondent No. 5 by the letter dated 11/04/2022. It was thereafter that the respondent No. 5 wrote the letter dated 02/06/2022 to the respondent No. 6 to resume the work and to complete the same within the time specified in the work order. It was thereafter that the respondent No. 5 wrote the letter dated 02/06/2022 to the respondent No. 6 to resume the work and to complete the same within the time specified in the work order. It will therefore be seen that in between 05/10/2021 i.e. the date of issuance of the work order and 30/09/2022 i.e. the date of the order granting the interim stay in the case, the construction of the work was stopped for about 6(six) months to clear the departmental confusion, but for the rest 6(six) months, the respondent No. 6 was on the job undertaking the construction. The contention therefore advanced by the respondents on substantial completion of the work therefore cannot be altogether discarded more particularly when the same has not been refuted by the petitioners. This Court therefore is not inclined to cancel the work order dated 05/10/2021 and stop the respondent No. 6 from continuing the work in question as such a re-course will militate against public interest. 14. It is well settled that ordinarily the State or its instrumentalities shall normally grant Government contract through public auction by inviting tenders from eligible persons and the notification of the public auction or inviting tenders should be advertised in well known dallies having wide circulation in the area concerned with every details of the contract for which the tender is invited. In the instant case, however the NIT was not widely published as mandated by law, but was only pasted in the Notice Board of the Office of the respondent No. 5 thereby depriving other interested persons/firms from having knowledge of the same and debarring them from participating in the tendering process. There was therefore no transparency in awarding the work to the respondent No. 6. This Court however while not giving the seal of approval or ascribing to the action resorted to by the respondent authorities in awarding the contract to the respondent No.6 cannot loss sight of the fact that it was the petitioners who had themselves approached the respondent authorities for allotment of the work in their favour and also used the landowners and made attempts to avail the work to the exclusion of others. It was only after the attempts of the petitioners failed and the work order was issued to the respondent No.6 that the petitioners has filed the present writ petition taking the plea that no NIT was issued before awarding the work to the respondent No.6. It is not the case of the petitioners that they had approached the respondent authorities with a request to issue the NIT for the work so that all eligible tenderers could participate in the tender process. This Court is therefore of the view that the petitioners at this stage should not be allowed to turn around and contend that the process adopted by the State respondents is unfair. Even otherwise, the record shows that substantial portion of the work has been executed by the contractor and therefore any disruption of the work at this stage by cancelling the work order may hold up public works for an indefinite period of time and may seriously impede the execution of the project of public importance, thus delaying relief and succour to the citizens of the State more particularly to those residing in Chozuba area under Phek district and at the same time increasing the project cost manifold. This Court is therefore not inclined to interfere with work order dated 05/10/2021 but allow the respondent No. 6 to complete the project as specified in the work order in public interest. 15. In the case of N.G Projects Limited -versus-Vinod Kumar Jain & Others, reported in (2022) 6 SCC 127 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under; “19. The Specific Relief Act, 1963 was amended by Central Act 18 of 2018 when clause (ha) was inserted in Section 41 of the said Act to say: “41.(ha) if it would impede or delay the progress or completion of any infrastructure project or interfere with the continued provision of relevant facility related thereto or services being the subject matter of such project.” 20. Such amendment was in pursuance of the report submitted on 20-06-2016 of the Expert Committee. The report is as under: “The Expert Committee set on examining Specific Relief Act, 1963 submits its Report to Union Law & Justice Minister Recommends modifications for ensuring ease of doing business. The Expert Committee set on examining the Specific Relief Act, 1963 today submitted its Report to Union Law & Justice Minister Shri D.V.Sadananda Gowda here in New Delhi. The report is as under: “The Expert Committee set on examining Specific Relief Act, 1963 submits its Report to Union Law & Justice Minister Recommends modifications for ensuring ease of doing business. The Expert Committee set on examining the Specific Relief Act, 1963 today submitted its Report to Union Law & Justice Minister Shri D.V.Sadananda Gowda here in New Delhi. In its report the committee has recommended modifications in the Specific Relief Act, 1963 for ensuring the ease of doing business. In the context of tremendous developments which have taken place since 1963 and the present changed scenario involving contract based infrastructure developments, public private partnerships and other public projects, involving huge investments; and changes required in the present scheme of the Act so that specific performance is granted as a general rule and grant of compensation or damages for non-performance remains as an exception, the committee decided- (i). To change the approach, from damages being the rule and specific performance being the exception, to specific performance being the rule, and damages being the alternate remedy.. (ii). To provide guidelines for reducing the discretion granted to Courts and tribunals while granting performance and injunctive reliefs. (iii). To introduce provisions for rights of third parties (other than for Government contracts). (iv). To consider addressing unconscionable contracts, unfair contracts, reciprocity in contracts etc., and implied terms. The committee observed that there is a need to classify diverse Public utility Contracts as a distinct class recognising the inherent public interest/importance to be addressed in the Act. Any public work must progress without interruption. This requires consideration whether a court’s intervention in public works should be minimal. Smooth functioning of Public works projects can be effectively managed through a monitoring system and regulatory mechanism. The role of courts in this exercise is to interfere to the minimum extent so that public works projects will not be impeded or stalled.” 21. Since the construction of road is an infrastructure project and keeping in view the intent of the legislature that infrastructure projects should not be stayed, the High Court would have been well advised to hold its hand to stay the construction of the infrastructure project. Such provision should be kept in view even by the writ court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 23. Such provision should be kept in view even by the writ court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 23. In view of the above judgments of this Court, the Writ Court should refrain itself from imposing its decision over the decision of the employer as to whether or not to accept the bid of a tenderer. The Court does not have the expertise to examine the terms and conditions of the present day economic activities of the State and this limitation should be kept in view. Courts should be even more reluctant in interfering with contracts involving technical issues as there is a requirement of the necessary expertise to adjudicate upon such issues. The approach of the Court should be not to find fault with magnifying glass in its hands, rather the Court should examine as to whether the decision-making process is after complying with the procedure contemplated by the tender conditions. If the Court finds that there is total arbitrariness or that the tender has been granted in a malafide manner, still the Court should refrain from interfering in the grant of tender but instead relegate the parties to seek damages for the wrongful exclusion rather than to injunct the execution of the contract. The injunction or interference in the tender leads to additional costs on the State and is also against public interest. Therefore, the State and its citizens suffer twice, firstly by paying escalation costs and secondly, by being deprived of the infrastructure for which the present-day Governments are expected to work. 26. A word of caution ought to be mentioned herein that any contract of public service should not be interfered with lightly and in any case, there should not be any interim order derailing the entire process of the services meant for larger public good. The grant of interim injunction by the learned Single Bench of the High Court has helped no one except a contractor who lost a contract bid and has only caused loss to the State with no corresponding gain to anyone.” 16. In view of the discussions made above, this Court does not feel necessary to discuss as whether the action of the State Government in awarding the contract to the respondent No. 6 violates the conditions as given in the Manual for Procurement of Works and the General Financial Rules, 2017. 17. In view of the discussions made above, this Court does not feel necessary to discuss as whether the action of the State Government in awarding the contract to the respondent No. 6 violates the conditions as given in the Manual for Procurement of Works and the General Financial Rules, 2017. 17. The writ petition is dismissed. No cost. 18. The respondent No. 6 shall forthwith resume the work and complete the same as stipulated in the work order dated 05/10/2021. The petitioners are given the liberty to approach the competent civil court to claim damages, if any, entitled in law. 19. The learned Addl. Advocate General, Nagaland as also the respondent No. 3, if so advised, shall approach the competent forum to initiate necessary legal action against the petitioners and/or their counsels for making false and unsubstantiated allegations against them. 20. The interim order dated 30/09/2022 suspending the work order dated 05/10/2021 shall stand vacated.