JUDGMENT : MARLI VANKUNG, J. 1. Heard Mr. M. Pertin, learned senior counsel for the petitioner assisted by Mr. K. Dabi, learned counsel. Also heard Mr. R.H. Nabam, learned Addl. Advocate General and Mr. T.T. Tara, learned counsel for private respondent No. 7. 2. The instant writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 12.02.2025 which is an approval of the Bid Evaluation Board proceeding dated 10.01.2025, recommending the bid of the private respondent No. 7 for appointment of PDS Wholesale Nominee-Cum-Carriage Contractor in respect of Pakke Kessang District for the year 2025-2027, and for a direction for the respondent authorities to re-evaluate the tender process and make fresh recommendation in per the terms of the tender dated 10.12.2024. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner had responded to the tender notice vide PK/SUP-01/2021 dated 10.12.2024, for bids from interested and registered Cooperative Societies of Pakke Kessang District for appointment of PDS Wholesale Nominee-Cum-Carriage Contractor in respect of Pakke Kessang District for the year 2025 -2027 for carriage of PDS item through land route only. The said PDS carrier was to cover Seijosa, Dissing Passo, Pijirang and Pakke in Pakke Kessang District. The tender notice was issued as per the National Food Security Act (NFSA/13) rules/guidelines I(iii) for appointment of PDS land route carriage Contractor prescribed by the State Government vide their notification dated 16.01.2017. The petitioner along with the private respondents had participated in the tender process. The Tender Evaluation Board/Committee headed by ADC, Lemmi in its’ report dated 10.01.2025 recommended the bid of the private respondent no.7/ M/s Papu Hote Multipurpose Co-operative Society Ltd., Village Papu Hote. The writ petitioner had challenged the recommendation of the private respondent no.7 dated 10.01.2025 by filing a writ petition in WP(C) No. 95(AP)/2025, which became infructuous when on 12.02.2025, the Commissioner, Food and Civil Supplies, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, approved the report of the Tender Evaluation Board/Committee bid petition dated 10.01.2025, recommending the private respondent no.7. Thus, WP(C) No. 95(AP)/2025 on becoming infructuous, was closed by this court on 28.07.2025. Thus, WP(C) No. 95(AP)/2025 on becoming infructuous, was closed by this court on 28.07.2025. Subsequently the petitioner filed the instant WP(C) No. 111(AP)/2025, challenging the approval order dated 12.02.2025, wherein the respondent authorities approved the Bid Evaluation Board proceeding held on 10.01.2025, which had recommended the respondent no.7/ M/s Papu Hote Multipurpose Co-operative Society Ltd., Village Papu Hote and had rejected the bid of the petitioner. 4. Mr. M. Pertin, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent authorities had erred in issuing the order dated 12.02.2025 by accepting the recommendation of the Bid Evaluation Board proceeding dated 10.01.2025 and in rejecting the bid of the petitioner, for such reasons which are not mentioned in the terms and conditions of the tender notice dated 10.12.2024 and erred in accepting the bid of respondent no.7, on the ground that their defects are less than others. 5. The learned senior counsel submitted that first the ground for non-recommendation of the petitioner’s firm mentioned by the board was that ‘2(two) trucks (Tipper) submitted by the Petitioner was renewed by DTO Lemmi offline basis. Board couldn't check the details of vehicle viz. Insurance certificate. PUC etc. Hence board not accepted.’ 6. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the District Pakke-Kessang was a newly created District and there was no system of renewal of online service of vehicle documents, all the documents in District were done offline and hard copies was duly submitted before in the bid. Further, the office of DTO and Chairman, Tender Board are situated in same establishment and the non verification of documents of petitioners was a lame excuse to reject the bid of petitioners. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submitted that as per terms and condition of the NIT at clause 4(vii), the mandatory requirement is submission of registration certificates and road permits with taxes paid up to date and nowhere is the Insurance certificate and PUC is mandated. Thus, the rejection of bid on Tender Board inability to verify the check the details of vehicle viz. Insurance certificate & PUC, which is not mandate in Clause 4(iv), is illegal and liable to be set aside and quashed. 7. Thus, the rejection of bid on Tender Board inability to verify the check the details of vehicle viz. Insurance certificate & PUC, which is not mandate in Clause 4(iv), is illegal and liable to be set aside and quashed. 7. The learned senior counsel also submitted that the other ground for rejecting the bid of the petitioner was that the FPS dealers of Seijosa and Dissing Passo Circles submitted complaint vide letter No. NIL dated 06/01/2025 against the Firm for less delivery of PDS rice like 38 kg,35 Kg in place of 50 Kgs in bags and not to issue NOC. The learned senior counsel submitted that the Tender Board/Committee had gone beyond the documents available in the bid and the Tender Evaluation Board is to evaluate the bid documents submitted by the tenderers as per the tender, instead of relying upon an evaluation complaint lodged by a third party. 8. The learned senior counsel submitted that the Tender Board/Committee with mala fide intention had arbitrarily accepted the bid of the respondent no.7/ M/s. Papu Hote, MPCS Ltd., on finding respondent no.7 to be with minimum numbers of short falls in comparison to the other firms, which was not a condition mentioned in the tender. 9. The learned counsel relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court in Maha Mineral Mining & Benefication Pvt. Ltd Vs. Madhya Pradesh Power Generating Co. Ltd & Anr. , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1942 wherein it was observed that a bidder cannot be disqualified for failing to submit a document not explicitly required in the tender documents, even if other bidders submitted it or a similar but unstated requirement was assumed by the tendering authority. The Court overturned the disqualification under a specific clause, remanding the case for re-evaluation of the bid based on other tender requirements, stating that tender conditions must be clear and unambiguous. 10. The learned senior counsel submitted that the petitioner, thereafter, had filed an RTI application seeking all the bid documents of the private respondent No. 7, and from the documents received through RTI dated 18.02.2025, several inherent defects were also found in the bid of private respondent No. 7 and that despite the lack of the vital documents in the bid, the respondent authorities had given undue favour to the private respondent No. 7 by acting arbitrarily and being bias towards the petitioners. 11. 11. The learned senior counsel submitted that as per the RTI reply the respondent no.7 was found not to meet the terms and conditions of the tender as follows: i) The private respondent No. 7 did not deposit the earnest money of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs), as per clause 4(i) of the bid terms and conditions, but the Deputy Commissioner, Pakke Kessang District had accepted a Fixed Deposit from an M/s HT Enterprises and not from respondent No. 7 (M/s Papu Hote MPCS). ii) The respondent No. 7 had submitted insolvency certificate (Financial Soundness Certificate) from Arunachal Pradesh State Cooperative Apex Bank which is not a nationalized Bank as mandated by clause 4 (ii) of the tender. (iii) As per clause (v) of the tender, the tenderer has to submit "Income Tax Clearance certificate/income tax exemption certificate" as the case may be but same has not submitted by the private respondent. iv) that the requirement of clause 4(vii) has also not been followed wherein instead of 4(four) vehicles, only 2(two) vehicles with attested copies of registration certificates and road permit with tax paid up-to-date was shown to be permitted to carry the goods in the State of Assam. v) the copy of the business turnover certificate from RCS that the society had been running business turnover of at least 1 crore in the last 3 years as per the terms and conditions at clause 4(xiii) of the tender was also not submitted by the respondent no.7. He submitted that the private respondent No. 7 was registered only on 21.02.2022 and had not completed 3 years as Cooperative Society. vi) that at clause 7 of “Details Particulars of the Tenderers”, the Tenderers were to submit their permanent business activity certificate issued by the competent authority, showing its activities within East Kameng District/Papum Pare District/West Kameng District, Capital Complex. No such certificate has been submitted by the private respondent and despite non- submission of the mandatory requirement as per the tender, the respondent authorities have illegally ignored this fact and shown favoritism to the private respondent. 12. No such certificate has been submitted by the private respondent and despite non- submission of the mandatory requirement as per the tender, the respondent authorities have illegally ignored this fact and shown favoritism to the private respondent. 12. The learned senior counsel thus submitted that though the private respondent No. 7 had several defects and fell short of the Terms and Conditions of the Tender, however, the private respondent No. 7 has been arbitrarily selected instead of the petitioner by the respondent authorities who have ignored all the mandatory requirements of the Tender. He submitted that the respondent authorities have acted with malafide intention in order to grant tender work to the private respondent No. 7, by deliberately ignoring the various short comings of the bid of the private respondent No. 7. He submitted that only the person who is qualified as per the terms and conditions should be selected and those unqualified as per the terms and conditions of the tender should be rejected. He submitted that in the instant case, all the bidders are found to be unqualified and therefore, the respondent authorities should call for a fresh tender/invite fresh bidder and thereafter, select only the qualified bidder. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgments of the Apex Court in Banshidhar Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Limited & Ors. , 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2700 wherein the Apex court held that the decision of the Government must be free from all arbitrariness and must not be affected by any bias or mala fide. 13. The learned senior counsel further submitted that the action of the respondent authorities are not only a violation of Article 14, & 21, of the Constitution of India, but also a violation of the legal rights of the petitioner in showing favoritism and malafide by accepting the bid of the private respondent no.7. The learned counsel has relied on the judgment of the Apex court in Jasbhai Motibhai Desai Vs. The learned counsel has relied on the judgment of the Apex court in Jasbhai Motibhai Desai Vs. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed & Ors., (1976) 1 SCC 671 wherein the Apex court held that in order to have the locus siandi to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, an applicant should ordinarily be one who has a personal or individual right in the subject-matter of the application, and that in the instant case, the fundamental rights of the petitioner under Article 14 and 21 of the constitution and his legal rights have been violated, in rejecting his bid and in arbitrarily accepting the bid of the private respondent no.7. 14. Per contra, Mr. T. Tara, learned counsel for the private respondent no.7, submitted that the the instant writ petition is not maintainable because the petitioner had withdrawn his EMD before the filing of the instant writ petition. That the petitioner has no locus standi after the withdrawal of his EMD from the tender authorities and therefore, the instant writ petition is devoid of merit. He submitted that the petitioner had suppressed material facts by not mentioning about the withdrawal of his Ernest Money Deposit after the previous WP(C) (AP) 95/2025 was closed by this court and thus the instance writ petition should be dismissed at the very threshold. 15. The learned counsel for the private respondent further submitted that the respondent authorities have rightly recommended the private respondent No. 7 for appointment of PDS Wholesale Nominee-Cum-Carriage Contractor in respect of Pakke Kessang District in the year 2025 to 2027 by rejecting the petitioner’s bid which did not meet the requirement under clause 4(vii) of the tender. 16. The learned counsel further submitted that the requirement as per the terms and conditions of the tender for deposit of earnest money of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs) in favour of the Deputy Commissioner, Pakke Kessang District, does not mention that the deposit has to be done only in the name of the private respondent and that the deposit at call receipt/fixed deposit receipt was made by HT Enterprises on behalf of the private respondent. He further submitted that the Arunachal Pradesh Co-operative Apex Bank is a bank which has been operating in the state of Arunachal Pradesh for a very long time and it is wrong for the petitioner to say that it is not a nationalized Bank. He further submitted that the Arunachal Pradesh Co-operative Apex Bank is a bank which has been operating in the state of Arunachal Pradesh for a very long time and it is wrong for the petitioner to say that it is not a nationalized Bank. He further submitted that the respondent No. 7 had submitted 6 (six) numbers of No Due Certificate from all the 6 (six) banks while submitting his bid documents and that copies of the undue Certificates dated 18.12.2024, 16.12.2024 and 19.12.2024 have been duly annexed. It was also submitted that the respondent No. 7 had submitted an income tax exemption certificate dated 07.01.2025 issued by the Nitin Gami & Associates, Chartered Accountant, FRN No. 332567E and thus, the respondent No. 7 is eligible for exemption from income tax under the provisions of Section 10(26) of the Income Tax Act. The learned counsel further submitted that as per the terms and conditions of clause 4(vii) of the tender, the road permit was duly enclosed and that the terms and conditions do not specifically mention permit from State of Arunachal Pradesh and Assam. He submitted that there was no road connectivity within the State of Arunachal Pradesh to the Districts of Pakke Kessang from the Fair price shop of Sejiosa and Dissing Passo circles and the vehicle need to travel to Assam road. He further submitted that the business turnover of the private respondent No. 7 for the past 3 years i.e., 2021-2022, 2022- 2023 and 2023-2024 has been duly filed. Thus the bid of respondent no.7 was rightly selected by the respondent authorities. 17. The learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that the clause 4 (vii) of Term and Conditions of the tender required that details of vehicles, details including the insurance and PUC, which the petitioner failed to submit the insurance certificate and PUC for two tippers & one truck PUC. That instead of submitting minimum 4 (four) trucks, the petitioner has submitted 2 tippers. He also submitted that the petitioner's 2 vehicles (Truck) lease agreement dated 08.01.2025 were executed before the Public Notary instead of Magistrate, which is also a violation of clause 4 (vii) of term and condition of tender. 18. That instead of submitting minimum 4 (four) trucks, the petitioner has submitted 2 tippers. He also submitted that the petitioner's 2 vehicles (Truck) lease agreement dated 08.01.2025 were executed before the Public Notary instead of Magistrate, which is also a violation of clause 4 (vii) of term and condition of tender. 18. The learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that the tendering authorities have done a composite evaluation and found that the firm of the private respondent No.7 was most eligible in comparison to other bidders and was therefore, recommended for award of the work. After completion of all formalities, the Deputy Commissioner, Pakke Kessang District, Lemmi has issued sub - allotment order of NFSA Rice on 20.03.2025 and there was no arbitrariness or malefide in the whole process. The learned counsel also submitted that this court has a limited power of review in these circumstances wherein the instant tender is with regards to the supply of rice to the public and the grievance of an individual bidder cannot override the interest of the public, who are the residents of Pakke Kessang District. 19. The learned counsel has relied on the following judgments of the Apex Court in N.G. Projects Limited Vs. Vinod Kumar Jain & Ors. , (2022) 6 SCC 127 and in Banshidhar Construction Private Limited Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Limited & Ors., (2024) 10 SCC and a co ordinate court of this court in Larsing M. Vs. Meghalaya Tourism Develop-ment Corpn. Ltd. & Anr. , 2008 (2) GLT 564 wherein the decisions of the Apex court in Sterling Computers Ltd. v. M & N Publications Ltd., (1993) 1 SCC 445 and Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651 were referred to, while dealing with the scope of judicial review of award, and it was held that the Court is concerned primarily as to whether there has been any infirmity in the “decision making process and that the purpose of judicial review is to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment, and examine whether “decision-making process” was reasonable, rational, not arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and not the merits of the decision wherein the court does not have the expertise to correct the administrative decision. If a review of the administrative decision is permitted it will be substituting its own decision, without the necessary expertise which itself may be fallible. If a review of the administrative decision is permitted it will be substituting its own decision, without the necessary expertise which itself may be fallible. 20. Mr. R.H. Nabam, learned Addl. Advocate General submitted that the petitioner had previously filed the writ petition registered as WP(C) No. 95(AP)/2025. On the closure of the writ petition, the petitioner had withdrawn his Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) on 27.01.2025 and subsequently filed the WP(C) No. 111(AP)/2025 on 17.03.2025. He submitted that when WP(C) No. 111(AP)/2025 was filed, the petitioner was having no locus standi to challenge or file the writ petition, when he had already withdrawn the earnest money/EMD before filing of the WP(C) No. 111(AP)/2025. He also submitted that WP(C) No. 111(AP)/2025 is in fact, continuous to WP(C) No. 95(AP)/2025, for which the petitioner did not take the leave of the court and therefore, the instant writ petitions deserve to be dismissed outright. The learned Addl. Advocate General further submitted that the tender process is for the supply of essential commodities i.e., food greenery for the year 2025-2027 and the respondents after considering the bids of the applicants found that the respondent no. 7 was having the minimum numbers of shortfalls in comparison to the other firms and accordingly, the Board had rightly recommended the private respondent No. 7 for appointment as Carriage Contractor for Pakke Kessang District and that the instant writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 21. This court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for both the parties and have also perused the documents on record. 22. This court finds that on the issue of maintainability, the matter has been aptly dealt with by the Apex court Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed (supra) wherein it was observed that in order to have the locus standi to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, an applicant should ordinarily be one who has a personal or individual right in the subject-matter of the application, though in the case of some of the writs like habeas corpus or quo warranto this rule is relaxed or modified. In other words, as a general rule, infringement of some legal right or prejudice to some legal interest inhering in the petitioner is necessary to give him a locus standi in the matter: 35. The expression “ordinarily” indicates that this is not a cast-iron rule. In other words, as a general rule, infringement of some legal right or prejudice to some legal interest inhering in the petitioner is necessary to give him a locus standi in the matter: 35. The expression “ordinarily” indicates that this is not a cast-iron rule. It is flexible enough to take in those cases where the applicant has been prejudicially affected by an act or omission of an authority, even though he has no proprietary or even a fiduciary interest in the subject-matter. That apart, in exceptional cases even a stranger or a person who was not a party to the proceedings before the authority, but has a substantial and genuine interest in the subject-matter of the proceedings will be covered by this rule. The principles enunciated in the English cases noticed above, are not inconsistent with it: 39. To distinguish such applicants from “strangers” among them, some broad tests may be deduced from the conspectus made above. These tests are not absolute and ultimate. Their efficacy varies according to the circumstances of the case, including the statutory context in which the matter falls to be considered. These are: Whether the applicant is a person whose legal right has been infringed? Has he suffered a legal wrong or injury, in the sense, that his interest, recognised by law, has been prejudicially and directly affected by the act or omission of the authority, complained of? Is he a person who has suffered a legal grievance, a person “against whom a decision has been pronounced which has wrongfully deprived him of something or wrongfully refused him something, or wrongfully affected his title to something?” Has he a special and substantial grievance of his own beyond some grievance or inconvenience suffered by him in common with the rest of the public? Was he entitled to object and be heard by the authority before it took the impugned action? If so, was he prejudicially affected in the exercise of that right by the act of usurpation of jurisdiction on the part of the authority? Is the statute, in the context of which the scope of the words “person aggrieved” is being considered, a social welfare measure designed to lay down ethical or professional standards of conduct for the community? Or is it a statute dealing with private rights of particular individuals?” 23. Is the statute, in the context of which the scope of the words “person aggrieved” is being considered, a social welfare measure designed to lay down ethical or professional standards of conduct for the community? Or is it a statute dealing with private rights of particular individuals?” 23. In applying the above principles in the instant case, this court finds that the petitioner had participated in the tender, wherein his bid was rejected by the respondent authorities and the petitioner is aggrieved by the procedure followed by the respondent authorities in the selection process, which according to the petitioner, was mala fide and arbitrarily, resulting in the violation of his fundamental rights under article 14& 21 and an infringement of his legal rights. Thus, this court is of the considered view that he has the locus standi to file the instant writ petition under section 226 of the Constitution of India even if his EMD was withdrawn for whatsoever reasons. 24. On the aspect of whether the selection process followed by the respondent authorities is found to be sustainable, it is seen that the respondent authorities had issued a tender notice vide PK/SUP-01/2021 dated 10.12.2024, for bids from interested and registered Cooperative Societies of Pakke Kessang District for appointment of PDS Wholesale Nominee- Cum-Carriage Contractor in respect of Pakke Kessang District for the year 2026 -2027 for carriage of PDS item through land route only. The said PDS carrier was to cover Seijosa, Dissing Passo, Pijirang and Pakke in Pakke Kessang District. 25. At para 4 of the Tender notice, the following terms and conditions was given: i. Earnest money of Rs.2, 00000/- (Rupees two lakhs) only in the form of 'Deposit at Call receipt/Fixed Deposit Receipt in favour of the Deputy Commissioner, Pakke Kessang district. The earnest money will be re funded on finalization of the tender. ii. Financial soundness certificate from a nationalized bank, mentioning the value of contract, and that the tenderer is capable of undertaking for a minimum amount of Rs.50, 00000/-(Rupees fifty Lakhs) only (as per category). iii. No dues certificate from all banks (SBI, APCAB, UCO, Vijay Bank, UBI, APRB) should be furnished by the renderers along with the financial soundness certificate. iv. Financial soundness certificate from a nationalized bank, mentioning the value of contract, and that the tenderer is capable of undertaking for a minimum amount of Rs.50, 00000/-(Rupees fifty Lakhs) only (as per category). iii. No dues certificate from all banks (SBI, APCAB, UCO, Vijay Bank, UBI, APRB) should be furnished by the renderers along with the financial soundness certificate. iv. In the event of 2(two) registered Cooperative Societies quoting similar rates/documents, preference shall be given to the registered Cooperative Societies having experience in transportation of food grains in Food and Civil Supplies Department/Food Corporation of India and details of experience should be attached with the tender and next option will be other Govt. stores. v. Income tax clearance certificate/income tax exemption certificate as the case may be. vi. A duly signed copy of this terms and conditions should be enclosed with the tender, in acceptance of the same. vii. Details of vehicles owned by the tenderer along with attested copies of Registration certificates and road permits (minimum four trucks) or attested copies of lease agreement executed before a Magistrate (minimum four trucks) with attested copies of registration certificates and road permits with taxes paid upto date. viii. ST Certificate. ix. Permanent Resident certificate, x. Date of birth certificate xi. Education qualification certificate and xii. Details of other infrastructures available including Godown and office, xiii. A copy of business turn over certificate from RCS that the society has been running business turn of at least 1(one) crore in last 3 (three) years (original) xiv. Copy of up to date audit report xv. Valid Registration certificate of co-operative society. 26. It is seen that the respondent authorities have accepted the recommendation of the Bid Evaluation Board proceedings dated 10.01.2025 in the selection of the bidder for appointment of PDS Wholesale Nominee-Cum-Carriage Contractor in respect of Pakke Kessang for the year 2025-2027 for carriage of Pakke Kessang items through land route. The contents of the Board proceedings dated 10.01.2025 is reproduced herein below:- BOARD PROCEEDING The board constituted for opening of Tender vides Deputy Commissioner Order NO. PKG/SUP-01/NIT/2021 Dated 23 rd December’ 2024 met on 10 th January’ 2025 at 12.30 hrs in the Office Chamber of the Additional Deputy Commissioner Pakke Kessang. 4 (four) Nos of sealed tenders were found inside the tender box which was opened in presence of all the tenderers. PKG/SUP-01/NIT/2021 Dated 23 rd December’ 2024 met on 10 th January’ 2025 at 12.30 hrs in the Office Chamber of the Additional Deputy Commissioner Pakke Kessang. 4 (four) Nos of sealed tenders were found inside the tender box which was opened in presence of all the tenderers. The board examined the documents of Tender Papers and found following observation:- 1. M/s Papu Pani (1/2) :- (a) Truck No AR-01-4307 PUC expired on 27/6/2024 (b) As per agreement of Godown, and documents submitted in the tender, the board has verified and found 2 (two) small rooms which is insufficient to stock 67 Mt. of rice. 2. M/s N.N. MPCS (1/4) :- (a) 2 (two) nos of truck (Tipper) submitted which is renewed by DTO Lemmi Offline basis. Board couldn’t check details of vehicles viz: Insurance certificate, PUC etc. (c) The FPS dealer of Sejiosa and Dissing Passo circles submitted Complaint vide letter No. Nil dated 6/1/2025 against the firm for less delivery of rice like 38 kgs in place of 50 kgs in bag and not to issue NOC. 3. M/s Papu Hote, MPCS (1/3):- (a) Truck No AS01NC1187 Insurance expired on 3/01/2025 4. M/s Baadhane Anne (1/1):- As per NIT term and condition NOC from following bank has not submitted (a) SBI, (b) UCO, (c) V/Bank, (d) APRB. Hence board has not accepted (b) As per document submitted in the tender, the board verified the Godown and found that it is in the First floor of the building which is not reliable to carry and stock 67 MT of rice. After examining the documents of above mentioned firms M/s. Papu Hote, MPCS Ltd. is found to be with minimum numbers of short falls in comparison to the other firms. Hence the board recommends M/s Papu Hote, MPCS Ltd to the Deputy Commissioner Pakke Kessang District for initiating further necessary action. Note:- (The Board has strictly prioritized on vehicle and godown). (Nabam Tagum) DFCSO (Nengbia Taya) BDO (Gunuk Nabam) AE PWD MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER (Kamin Darang) ADC 27. A perusal of the board proceeding dated 10.01.2025, shows that all the 4 (four) bidders have certain deficiencies in their documents which were submitted along with their respective bids. The bid of the respondent no.7 was selected on the grounds that he was having the least number of deficiencies in his bid documents. A perusal of the board proceeding dated 10.01.2025, shows that all the 4 (four) bidders have certain deficiencies in their documents which were submitted along with their respective bids. The bid of the respondent no.7 was selected on the grounds that he was having the least number of deficiencies in his bid documents. However, this court finds that there is no mention in the tender notice or in the tender documents that the Bid Evaluation Board is permitted to declare the bid of such bidder to be valid, if such bid is comparatively having lesser number of defects than the other bidders. 28. It is also seen from information obtained through RTI, that there were other shortfalls in the tender bid of the respondent No. 7, which were not highlighted in the Board proceeding. This court finds that there are two deficiencies in the bid of respondent No. 7, which are most noticeable. The first noticeable defect in the tender is that the respondent no.7 did not deposit the Earnest Money Deposit under its own name but that the earnest money was deposited by a M/s HT Enterprises. This court finds it hard to accept the explanation that the earnest money was deposited on behalf of respondent No. 7 (M/s Papu Hote MPCS) when no nexus is shown between M/s HT Enterprises and respondent No. 7 (M/s Papu Hote MPCS). The second noticeable defect in the bid documents of respondent no.7 is regarding the financial soundness certificate from a Nationalized Bank, mentioning the value of contract which is to be submitted by the Tenderer. In the instant case the respondent no.7 has produced his insolvency certificate from the Arunachal Pradesh State Cooperative Apex Bank Ltd. which appears not to be a Nationalized Bank unless proved otherwise, since Apex Bank Ltd. is clearly a Cooperative bank. 29. From a discussion of the above two points alone, it can be seen that there are such defects in the bid documents of the respondent no.7, which the Bid Evaluation Board proceedings dated 10.01.2025 have failed to mention and for which the Board had concluded that the respondent no.7 was having comparatively lesser number of defects than the other bidders. This court therefore finds that the Bid Evaluation Board Proceedings cannot be said to be correct and therefore, the grounds for accepting the bid of respondent no. This court therefore finds that the Bid Evaluation Board Proceedings cannot be said to be correct and therefore, the grounds for accepting the bid of respondent no. 7 and rejecting the bid of the petitioner is also found to be erroneous. 30. At this juncture, this court finds it appropriate to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in Banshidhar Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Limited & Ors. (Supra) which is found is quite similar and aptly applicable in the instant case, wherein, the technical bids of the tender were opened on 04.12.2023 and after the evaluation of the same, the appellant was declared to be technically disqualified on 06.05.2024 on the grounds that it did not comply with Clause 10 of NIT and the BCCL authority accepted the technical bid of respondent no. 8, which was also clearly not in compliance with clause 10 of NIT. The aggrieved petition had filed the writ petition before the High Court which was however dismissed by the High Court. Aggrieved by the dismissal, the appellant approached the Apex Court. The issue for determination before the Apex court was: Whether the respondent BCCL was justified in rejecting the technical bid of the appellant and declaring the respondent 8 company the successful bidder, even though the latter did not satisfy the eligibility criteria, having failed to furnish all requisite documents in terms of NIT. The Apex court held set aside the selection of the technical bid of the respondent no.8 and held that it shall be open for the BCCL to initiate fresh tender process for the Project and to process the same in accordance with law. The Apex Court in had observed and held as follows:- “28. There cannot be any disagreement to the legal proposition propounded in a catena of decisions of this Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents to the effect that the Court does not sit as a court of appeal in the matter of award of contracts and it merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made; and that the Government and its instrumentalities must have a freedom of entering into the contracts. However, it is equally well-settled that the decision of the Government/its instrumentalities must be free from arbitrariness and must not be affected by any bias or actuated by mala fides. 29. However, it is equally well-settled that the decision of the Government/its instrumentalities must be free from arbitrariness and must not be affected by any bias or actuated by mala fides. 29. Government bodies being public authorities are expected to uphold fairness, equality and public interest even while dealing with contractual matters. Right to equality under Article 14 abhors arbitrariness. Public authorities have to ensure that no bias, favouritism or arbitrariness are shown during the bidding process and that the entire bidding process is carried out in absolutely transparent manner.” 31. This court finds that the same principles would also be applicable in the instant case, wherein it is seen that the respondent authorities had acted on the basis of a ground, which were not mentioned in the tender notice, and therefore, appear to have given a chance for favoritism and arbitrariness to crepe in at the time of making the selection of the bidders. This is also a situation where both the petitioner and the selected respondent No. 7 have fallen short of the Terms and Conditions of the tender notice. It is also seen that the remaining other two bidders have also shown certain deficiencies in terms of the Terms and Conditions of the tender notice. This court thus, finds the impugned decision of the respondent authorities was without any sound basis whereas, the Government bodies/instrumentalities are expected to act in absolutely fair, reasonable and transparent manner and any element of arbitrariness or discrimination may lead to hampering of the entire tender process which would not be in the public interest wherein, the tender for carriage of PDS items being essential commodities. 32. Under the above facts and circumstances, the only option that appeared to be available to the respondent authorities to ensure that there is fairness and transparency and equal treatment to all the applicants/bidder, is if a fresh tender was immediately called for by the respondent authorities and, thereafter a selection of the rightful bidder be made in accordance with law/ in terms of the tender notice issued by the respondent authorities. A sincere attempt should be made by the respondent authorities to complete the tender process expeditiously considering the fact that the tender is for-carriage of PDS items. 33. Writ Petition No. 111(AP)/2025 accordingly stands allowed and disposed of as above.