JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J. 1. The extraordinary jurisdiction conferred to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is sought to be invoked by means of this petition, whereby, a challenge has been made to the decision to allot a particular work to the Respondent No. 9 in a tender process. The petitioner has alleged that such allotment, apart from being grossly illegal and arbitrary, is also wholly opposed to the interest of public service. 2. As per the facts projected in the petition, a Notice-Inviting Tender was floated by the Superintending Engineer, Electrical, Department of Power, Pasighat, for electrification work in East Siang District. The name of the work in the said NIT, dated 17.01.2024 was “Development of Distribution Infrastructure in East Siang District of Arunachal Pradesh under the Revamped Reforms-Based and Results-linked, Distribution Sector Scheme”. The petitioner, which claims itself to be eligible in all respects, had procured the Standard Bidding Document and had participated its bid. On 25.01.2024, a Pre-Bid meeting was held in the office chamber of the Superintending Engineer, Electrical, Department of Power, Pasighat, wherein, the representatives of all the prospective bidders were present. In the said meeting, it was decided to consider justified range as per the Memorandum, dated 18.09.2023, while evaluating price bids in conformity with Clause 36 of the Standard Bidding Document. 3. The petitioner has brought on record the Memorandum, dated 18.09.2023, issued by the Department of Power of the State, whereby, guidelines were laid down, which were to be followed by the said Department in the matter of tender, evaluation and award. For ready reference, the relevant clause of the said Memorandum is extracted herein below: “4. Justified bid price ranges category-wise: To weed out unrealistically very low and excessively high and obstructive biddings, the justified ranges of bid prices of materials and works as determined for respective category-wise areas shall have to be adopted and adhered to in the bid evaluation processes of tenders, and the contract award thereof for execution in the Department of Power, as contained in the following respective annexures: a. Category-I at Annexure-I i. … ii. … …. v. Pasighat Electrical Division ….’ ‘5. … …. v. Pasighat Electrical Division ….’ ‘5. Validity of Justified Bid Price Ranges: The Justified Bid Price Ranges provided herein as above shall be valid for the bids of the tenders floated and processed for award during the Current Financial Year, i.e., 2023-24.’ ….” 4. It is the case of the petitioner that 7 (seven) numbers of bidders had initially submitted their bids and 3 (three) could qualify in the Techno- Commercial Evaluation, including the petitioner and the respondent No. 9. It may be mentioned that one, M/s Techno Power Enterprises was the third bidder. The price bids of the technically responsive 3 (three) bidders were opened on 21.02.2024 and the price bid of the respondent No. 9 was rejected being abnormally low and the bid of M/s Techno Power Enterprises was declared as L-1. The Office of the Superintending Engineer had, thereafter, submitted comparative statement of the price bids of all the bidders vide letter, dated 26.02.2024. It has been clearly stated that the bid of the respondent No. 9 was rejected, whereas, the bid of M/s Techno Power Enterprises was declared as L-1. Consequently, on 12.03.2024, the Office of the Superintending Engineer had issued a letter to the respondent No. 9, informing about the rejection of its bid on the ground that it was abnormally low. However, on 14.03.2024, the said Office had asked the respondent No. 9 to justify its abnormally low bid. Accordingly, on 15.03.2024, the respondent No. 9 had submitted a reply trying to justify the bid which was found to be abnormally low. The said reply was considered and vide letter dated 22.03.2024, the Department had informed that the justification was not found satisfactory by the Tender Opening Board and accordingly, the price bid of the respondent No. 9 was rejected. The said decision was conveyed to the respondent No. 9 vide communication dated 26.04.2024. 5. Thereafter, no discernible action was taken to finalise the job. However, the petitioner later came to know that on 29.05.2024, a Memorandum was issued by the Department constituting a Sub- Committee for re-examination of the justifications provided by the bidders regarding low prices. The said Sub-Committee decided to collect prices for the identified list of items exclusively from the approved vendor list of REC Limited and for this purpose, one Assistant Engineer was deputed to Kolkata. The said Sub-Committee decided to collect prices for the identified list of items exclusively from the approved vendor list of REC Limited and for this purpose, one Assistant Engineer was deputed to Kolkata. The said Sub-Committee had passed a report which was forwarded vide communication dated 15.07.2024. As per the said report, the justifications assigned by the respondent No. 9 was accepted. 6. Without the aforesaid development being divulged in the public domain and sufficient time having elapsed, the petitioner had submitted a representation on 21.11.2024 to the Department for re-evaluation of its financial bid as in the meantime, the work was not allotted to M/s Techno Power Enterprises in spite of the same being declared as L-1. It is the case of the petitioner that the aspect of constitution of a Sub-Committee in the meantime was not disclosed. On the said representation, the Chief Engineer, Power, had issued a letter dated 26.11.2024 to the Superintending Engineer, asking him for a re-evaluation of the price bid of the petitioner. Accordingly, on 03.01.2025, the Tender Opening Board undertook an exercise of comprehensive re-evaluation of the price bid of the petitioner and after the said process, a recommendation was made in favour of the petitioner. It was observed that the bid of the petitioner was found to be least deviated from the standard rate. 7. It is only, thereafter, that the report of the Sub-Committee on was approved on 12.01.2025 and immediately, thereafter on 15.01.2025, the impugned order was issued, whereby, the Superintending Engineer had informed the Responder No. 9 that its bid was accepted along with which, a Letter of Intent (LoI) was also issued to the Responder No. 9. The petitioner had, immediately, submitted a representation dated 22.01.2025 to the Department and as the said was not acted upon, the present writ petition was filed. 8. In this writ petition, an order was passed on 31.01.2025 by this Court, staying the operation of the Letter of Intent dated 15.01.2025 as well as the report of the Sub-Committee. The said interim order was extended from time to time and presently, an order of status quo is in operation. 9. I have heard Shri P. K. Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. L. Sangtam, learned counsel for the petitioner, whereas, Shri L. Perme, learned Standing Counsel, Power, is present for the Department. The said interim order was extended from time to time and presently, an order of status quo is in operation. 9. I have heard Shri P. K. Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. L. Sangtam, learned counsel for the petitioner, whereas, Shri L. Perme, learned Standing Counsel, Power, is present for the Department. The Respondent No. 9 is represented by Shri D. Das, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri D. Panging, learned counsel. 10. Shri Tiwari, the learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the tender in question was to be wholly governed by the Memorandum, dated 18.09.2023, which lays down the guidelines to be followed in the Power Department, which includes the aspect of justified bid. By drawing the attention of this Court to the said Memorandum, dated 18.09.2023, the learned Senior Counsel has submitted that there is a specific reference to the Pasighat Electrical Division, wherein, this Memorandum would be applicable and the tenure of the NIT, also falls within the period mentioned in the said Memorandum. He has submitted that there is no manner of any doubt of application of the aforesaid Memorandum so far as working out of the present NIT is concerned. He has submitted that the aforesaid aspect was also clarified in the Pre-Bid Meeting held on 25.01.2024, in which there was a specific reference of the Memorandum, dated 18.09.2023, regarding consideration of justified rates of the bids. 11. He has submitted that on opening of the financial bids of the three technically responsive bidders, the bid of the respondent No. 9 was found to be abnormally low and accordingly, the same was rejected on 21.02.2024. He has submitted that the same order of rejection was not the subject matter of any challenge by the respondent No. 9. Nonetheless, the Office of the Superintending Engineer had issued a letter to the respondent No. 9 on 14.03.2024, directing it to justify its abnormally low bid. The respondent No. 9 had, accordingly, tried to justify its abnormally low bid vide letter, dated 15.03.2024. However, the same justification was rejected by the e-Tender Opening Board, which was accordingly conveyed to the respondent No. 9 vide communication, dated 22.03.2024. The learned Senior Counsel has submitted that after such rejection which had attained finality, there was no occasion for the Department to re-open the matter, more so, when the respondent No. 9 did not challenge the aforesaid action. The learned Senior Counsel has submitted that after such rejection which had attained finality, there was no occasion for the Department to re-open the matter, more so, when the respondent No. 9 did not challenge the aforesaid action. It is the specific case of the petitioner as argued by the learned Senior Counsel that from the said date of 22.03.2024 to 15.01.2025, there was absolute silence from the Department. 12. It is submitted that in the meantime, the petitioner had submitted a representation to the Department to re-evaluate its Financial Bid, vide letter dated 21.11.2024. The said letter was written in view of the fact that in spite of declaration of one M/s Techno Power Enterprises as L-1, the work was not allotted to the said party and the said party had also not raised any grievance regarding such non-allotment. It is submitted that the approach of the petitioner to the Department vide the aforesaid communication dated 21.11.2024 was endorsed by the Department and the Chief Engineer vide letter, dated 26.11.2024 had directed the Superintending Engineer to make a comprehensive re-evaluation of the price bid of the petitioner. Accordingly, on 03.01.2025, the re-evaluation of the price bid of the petitioner was done and it was found that the bid of the petitioner was least deviated from the standard rate and accordingly, a recommendation in favour of the petitioner was made by the Tender Opening Board. It was at this stage that the petitioner came to know about the constitution of a Sub-Committee, which on its own, had done a survey by deputing an Assistant Engineer to Kolkata and based on the findings upon such survey, the abnormally low bid of the Respondent No. 9 was accepted followed by issuance of the Letter of Intent. 13. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Sub-Committee appears to have been constituted not for the Pasighat package but for the other packages and Pasighat package appears to have been included at a much later stage. He has also submitted that so far as at least three other packages are concerned, namely, Rupa, Itanagar and Naharlagun, though the abnormally low rates of a party was accepted, still the Letters of Intent were given to other bidders. However, so far as Pasighat is concerned, there was a deviation and the Letter of Intent was given to the respondent No. 9. However, so far as Pasighat is concerned, there was a deviation and the Letter of Intent was given to the respondent No. 9. He submits that there was no jurisdiction or power on the part of the Department to constitute a Sub-Committee to re-examine the abnormally low bid of the respondent No. 9 and such action was in violation of the Memorandum holding the field, dated 18.09.2023, which had envisaged acceptance of a justified bid. He has also submitted that the very objective of the Memorandum was in the interest of the public exchequer as well as with the objective that there should not be any effect on the quality of the work. 14. In support of his submission, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following case laws. (i) Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs. The International Airport Authority of India, (1979) 3 SCC 489 (ii) Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Limited and Anr. vs. Union of India and Ors., (2025) 1 SCC 695 (iii) Jagdish Mandal vs. State of Orissa & Ors. and Laxman Sharma vs. State of Orissa and Ors., (2007) 14 SCC 517 (iv) Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. vs. Rajasthan High Court & Ors., (2025) 2 SCC 1 15. In the landmark case of Ramana Dayaram (supra) , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has made the following observations: “...10. Now, there can be no doubt that what paragraph (1) of the notice prescribed was a condition of eligibility which was required to be satisfied by every person submitting a tender. The condition of eligibility was that the person submitting a tender must be conducting or running a registered IInd Class hotel or restaurant and he must have at least 5 years' experience as such and if he did not satisfy this condition of eligibility, his tender would not be eligible for consideration. This was the standard or norm of eligibility laid down by respondent 1 and since the respondents 4 did not satisfy this standard or norm, it was not competent to respondent I to entertain the tender of respondents 4. It is a well settled rule of administrative law that an executive authority must be rigorously held to the standards by which it professes its actions to be judged and it must scrupulously observe those standards on pain of invalidation of an act in violation of them. This rule was enunciated by Mr. It is a well settled rule of administrative law that an executive authority must be rigorously held to the standards by which it professes its actions to be judged and it must scrupulously observe those standards on pain of invalidation of an act in violation of them. This rule was enunciated by Mr. Justice Frankfurter in Viteralli v. Saton' where the learned Judge said: An executive agency must be rigorously held to the standards by which it professes its action to be judged.... Accordingly, if dismissal from employment is based on a defined procedure, even though generous beyond the requirements that bind such agency, that procedure must be scrupulously observed....This judicially evolved rule of administrative law is now firmly established and, if I may add, rightly so. He that takes the procedural sword shall perish with the sword..” 16. The said observation has been quoted with approval in the very recent case of Kirloskar (supra). 17. In the case of Jagdish Mandal (supra) , which relates to the aspect of judicial review in contractual matters, the following observations have been made: “...22. Judicial review of administrative action is intended to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, bias and mala fides. Its purpose is to check whether choice or decision is made "lawfully" and not to check whether choice or decision is "sound". When the power of judicial review is invoked in matters relating to tenders or award of contracts, certain special features should be borne in mind. A contract is a commercial transaction. Evaluating tenders and awarding contracts are essentially commercial functions. Principles of equity and natural justice stay at a distance. If the decision relating to award of contract is bona fide and is in public interest, courts will not, in exercise of power of judicial review, interfere even if a procedural aberration or error in assessment or prejudice to a tenderer, is made out. The power of judicial review will not be permitted to be invoked to protect private interest at the cost of public interest, or to decide contractual disputes. The tenderer or contractor with a grievance can always seek damages in a civil court. Attempts by unsuccessful tenderers with imaginary grievances, wounded pride and business rivalry, to make mountains out of molehills of some technical/procedural violation or some prejudice to self, and persuade courts to interfere by exercising power of judicial review, should be resisted. The tenderer or contractor with a grievance can always seek damages in a civil court. Attempts by unsuccessful tenderers with imaginary grievances, wounded pride and business rivalry, to make mountains out of molehills of some technical/procedural violation or some prejudice to self, and persuade courts to interfere by exercising power of judicial review, should be resisted. Such interferences, either interim or final, may hold up public works for years, or delay relief and succour to thousands and millions and may increase the project cost manifold. Therefore, a court before interfering in tender or contractual matters in exercise of power of judicial review, should pose to itself the following questions: (i) Whether the process adopted or decision made by the authority is mala fide or intended to favour someone; OR Whether the process adopted or decision made is so arbitrary and irrational that the court can say: "the decision is such that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could have reached" (ii) Whether public interest is affected. If the answers are in the negative, there should be no interference under Article 226. Cases involving blacklisting or imposition of penal consequences on a tenderer/contractor or distribution of State largesse (allotment of sites/shops, grant of licences, dealerships and franchises) stand on a different footing as they may require a higher degree of fairness in action.” 18. The case of Tej Prakash Pathak (supra) has been cited, wherein, a Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has resolved the issue regarding changing the rules of the game after the game has begun. In fact, the said larger Bench was constituted as there was divergence of opinion in two sets of judgements. 19. The learned Senior Counsel, accordingly, submits that due interference is liable to be made by this Court and the work is to be allotted to the eligible bidder in accordance with law. 20. Defending the decision of the Department, Shri L. Perme, the learned Standing Counsel, has submitted that affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on 25.04.2025. He submits that as per the Auto-Generated Evaluation, the petitioner was at Serial No. 3 and the bid of one M/s Techno Power Enterprises was found to be L-1 for which, both the petitioner and the respondent No. 9 had filed objections. He submits that as per the Auto-Generated Evaluation, the petitioner was at Serial No. 3 and the bid of one M/s Techno Power Enterprises was found to be L-1 for which, both the petitioner and the respondent No. 9 had filed objections. With regard to the formation of the Sub-Committee, the learned Standing Counsel has submitted that such formation was done absolutely in the interest of public. He has admitted that though such constitution of Sub-Committee is not contemplated by the tender document, it has been done only for the interest of public. As regards the contention made on behalf of the petitioner that for other packages, the LOI was given to bidder other than the one recommended by the Sub-Committee, the learned Standing Counsel has submitted that in those packages, there were other factors like refund of EMD etc. which led to the decision. He has submitted that the entire exercise was carried out by the Department to serve the public interest and not for any mala fide purpose. 21. Endorsing the decision of the Department, Shri Das, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No. 9 has submitted that though at the first instance, the bid of the respondent No. 9 was rejected on the ground that it was found to be abnormally low, it was a decision by the Department to seek justification and accordingly, on 12.03.2024, the Chief Engineer had written to the Superintending Engineer to re-evaluate the bid of the respondent No. 9 after seeking justification. The justification was, accordingly, provided which however, rejected by the e-Tender Opening Board and such rejection was communicated to the respondent No. 9 on 26.04.2024. 22. As regards the reason for formation of the Sub-Committee, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No. 9 has submitted that there was a writ petition filed so far as the Rupa Package was concerned, in which certain observations were made by this Court, leading to formation of the Sub-Committee. He has in fact, presented before this Court certain orders passed by this Court in the aforesaid WP(C)No. 179(AP)2024. He has submitted that the Sub-Committee had examined the matter in its entirety and the justifications which were put by the respondent No. 9 were accepted leading to issuance of the LOI on 15.01.2025. He has in fact, presented before this Court certain orders passed by this Court in the aforesaid WP(C)No. 179(AP)2024. He has submitted that the Sub-Committee had examined the matter in its entirety and the justifications which were put by the respondent No. 9 were accepted leading to issuance of the LOI on 15.01.2025. He has submitted that the said process was undertaken for all the other packages and therefore, there was no case of any discrimination. As regards the Office Memorandum, dated 18.09.2023, the learned Senior Counsel has submitted that it is not a binding criteria and it is only a guideline. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to the prayer made in the writ petition and has submitted that if the formation of the Sub-Committee is interfered with, it will affect all the other works which are not even the subject matter of challenge. 23. Shri Das, learned Senior Counsel has relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of B.B. Enterprises vs. The State of Arunachal Pradesh and Ors. , (2020) 3 GLR 660 , wherein, this Court had laid down that matters which are within the domain of Expert Committees having specialized knowledge, Courts are not to interfere. 24. Shri Tiwari, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, in his rejoinder submission has contended that non-acceptance of the justification which was communicated to the respondent No. 9 vide letter, dated 22.03.2024 was not the subject matter of any challenge. He has reiterated that from the records it would appear that the Sub-Committee was formed only for the other Packages, which was done on 29.05.2024 and only in June 2024, the Pasighat Package was incorporated. He has submitted that there is no uniformity in the report of the Sub-Committee. He has also submitted that the contention advanced on behalf of the respondents that the Memorandum, dated 18.09.2023 is merely a guiding principle and not binding, is self-contradictory, as in the Pre-Bid Meeting held on 25.01.2024, the aforesaid Memorandum was said to be taken into consideration. 25. As regards the contention that there are certain other packages, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the present challenge is with regard to the Pasighat Package and will not affect the rights of the parties in the other packages. 25. As regards the contention that there are certain other packages, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the present challenge is with regard to the Pasighat Package and will not affect the rights of the parties in the other packages. He has also clarified that the Sub-Committee was not constituted by any orders of the Court but it appears that when the WP(C) No. 179/2024 was filed, it was conveyed to the Court on behalf of the Department that a Sub-Committee was constituted and the same will not give any legal sanctity to the aspect of constitution of this Sub-Committee. 26. The rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties have been duly considered and the materials placed before this Court including the original records have been carefully considered. In fact, while concluding the hearing on 20.05.2025, the learned Standing Counsel of the Department was directed to place the original records, which has been done subsequently. 27. The issue revolves around the decision-making process in the concerned NIT, dated 17.01.2024. Before going to the said aspect, it is required to make a determination on the aspect of the Memorandum, dated 18.09.2023 and its binding effect on the NIT in question. The aforesaid Memorandum, dated 18.09.2023 was issued, whereby, guidelines were laid down, which were to be followed in the Power Department in matters of tender/bid process, its evaluation and award of contract. The said Memorandum has in clear terms, laid down the concept of justified bid. The period in which the Memorandum would have its effect and the Division connecting the present NIT, namely Pasighat, are specifically mentioned in the said Memorandum. The issue whether the Memorandum will have any binding effect would get answered by the decision conveyed in the Pre-Bid meeting held on 25.01.2024, in which, it was clearly reflected that the said Memorandum would be adhered to. For ready reference, the relevant part of the Pre-Bid meeting is extracted hereinbelow: S. No. Bidders’ Queries/Points raised. Clarification 5. Whether Justified Bid Price Ranges of Electrical Distribution System in A.P for various categories as notified by the GoAP vide Memo No. PWRS/E134/2023/7453- 73, Dt. 18.09.2023 should be adhered to while quoting rates in Price Bid Yes. It will be taken into consideration while evaluation of the price bids in consonant with ITB Clause 36 of the SBD. 28. Whether Justified Bid Price Ranges of Electrical Distribution System in A.P for various categories as notified by the GoAP vide Memo No. PWRS/E134/2023/7453- 73, Dt. 18.09.2023 should be adhered to while quoting rates in Price Bid Yes. It will be taken into consideration while evaluation of the price bids in consonant with ITB Clause 36 of the SBD. 28. It is not in dispute that out of 7 (seven) numbers of bidders, 3 (three) bidders were found to be technically responsive, which included the petitioner, the respondent No. 9 and one M/s Techno Power Enterprises and in the Financial Bid, the bid of M/s Techno Power Enterprises was declared L-1. It is, however to be noted by the said decision, dated 21.02.2024, the bid of the respondent No. 9 was rejected as being abnormally low. The order of rejection was duly conveyed to the respondent No. 9 on 12.03.2024, whereafter, on 14.03.2024, the respondent No. 9 was given a further opportunity to justify its abnormally low bid. The respondent No. 9 had in fact tried to justify its abnormally low bid vide a response dated 15.03.2024, which was considered by the Department and vide letter, dated 22.03.2024, the justification was rejected by the e-Tender Opening Board. It is not in dispute that none of the decision dated 21.02.2024 of rejecting the bid of the respondent No. 9 to be abnormally low, the communications dated 12.03.2024 and 22.03.2024, whereby, the justification itself was rejected are the subject matters of any challenge in any Court of law. 29. It is the categorical case of the petitioner that from 22.03.2014 to January 2025, there was complete silence from the Department and the petitioner was not even aware of formation of any Sub-Committee. The aforesaid contention gets fortified by the aspect that the petitioner had submitted a representation on 21.11.2024 for re-evaluation of the financial bid, inasmuch as, no action was taken by the L-1 bidder, M/s Techno Power Enterprises, for allotment of the work and sufficient time had elapsed. It is also on record that the representation of the petitioner was duly considered and the Chief Engineer vide communication, dated 26.11.2024 had also directed the Superintending Engineer to make a comprehensive re-evaluation of the bid of the petitioner. What, thereafter, emerges is also very crucial to the instant case. It is also on record that the representation of the petitioner was duly considered and the Chief Engineer vide communication, dated 26.11.2024 had also directed the Superintending Engineer to make a comprehensive re-evaluation of the bid of the petitioner. What, thereafter, emerges is also very crucial to the instant case. After such re-evaluation, the Tender Opening Committee vide communication, dated 03.01.2025, had indeed made its recommendation in favour of the petitioner by coming to a conclusion that the bid of the petitioner was found to be least deviated from the standard rate. For ready reference, the relevant extract is quoted here and below: “...5. Considering the item wise analysis and assessment of average deviations shown at Column 26, 30 & 34 of the Comparative Statement, the deviation of; i). M/s D&G Construction.:- The average deviation on Supply is (-) 0.39% and Erection is (+) 2.10% from Average Justified Rate. ii). M/s Win Power Infra (P) Ltd.: The average deviation on Supply is (-) 8.16% and Erection is (-) 49.08% from Average Justified Rate iii). M/s Techno Power Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.: The average deviation on Supply is (+) 0.67% and Erection is (-) 32.72% from Average Justified Rate. The erection rates quoted are abnormally low. 6. In our Pre-bid Meeting Minute circulated vide No. No. SE(E)II/WS-22/2023-24/1940-48 Dt. 25.01.2024 it was clearly mentioned at Sl. No. 5, that the Justified Bid Price Ranges approved by the High Level Technical Committee as circulated vide Govt. Memo No. PWRS/E-134/2023/7453-73 Dt 18.09.2023 will be taken into consideration at the time Price Bid evaluation. 7. The earlier recommendation submitted vide this office letter No. SE(E)II/WS-22(C)2023-24/2283-84, Dt. 26.02.2024 was erroneously made as it was evaluated or Minimum Justified price ranges only. Since the Govt. Memo No. PWRS/E 134/2023/7453-73 Dt. 18.09.2023 has Maximum Justified price ranges also, the re-evaluation has been made on the basis of analysis of average of Minimum and Maximum Price ranges. Hence, earlier recommendation may be treated null & void. In view of the above, and upon re-evaluation the Price Bid of M/s D&G Construction, Naharlagun, is found to be least deviated from the average justified rate as per the Minimum & Maximum justified price ranges approved by the govt. and hence recommended for approval please.” 30. Hence, earlier recommendation may be treated null & void. In view of the above, and upon re-evaluation the Price Bid of M/s D&G Construction, Naharlagun, is found to be least deviated from the average justified rate as per the Minimum & Maximum justified price ranges approved by the govt. and hence recommended for approval please.” 30. It was, thereafter, that the report of the Sub-Committee was in public domain on 12.01.2025, which was immediately followed by the issuance of the Letter of Intent on 15.01.2025. As observed above, when this writ petition was filed, an interim order was passed which is continuing as on date. 31. The Sub-Committee initially appears to be for the other packages and not for Pasighat which was made a part of the Sub-Committee at a subsequent stage. Be that as it may, it reveals that the Sub-Committee had deputed one Assistant Engineer (Electrical) to Kolkata to make a market survey and thereafter, based on such market survey, a decision has been taken that the bid of the respondent No. 9 would still be justified. The learned Standing Counsel for the Department has very fairly submitted that neither the NIT nor the tender document, provides for constitution of any Sub-Committee and the same has only been done in the interest of public. While public interest is one of the crucial factors, the action of the Department has to be strictly in accordance with law. As has been laid down in a catena of judicial precedence that in a contractual matter, the examination of the decision has to be done not from the perspective whether the decision is sound but whether the decision is lawful. Without even going at this stage to the aspect of any mala fide or bias of the authorities, there is legal malice, inasmuch as, such formation of Sub-Committee is not envisaged by any law or the tender document. Law does not envisage or provides that the Department would keep on doing evaluation after evaluation until certain desired results are achieved. 32. This Court also finds sufficient force in the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that even the recommendation of the Sub- Committee was discriminatory in nature. He has clearly submitted that at least for the packages of Rupa, Itanagar and Naharlagun, though the Sub- Committee had accepted abnormally low bids, the LOI was not given to a different bidder. This Court also finds sufficient force in the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that even the recommendation of the Sub- Committee was discriminatory in nature. He has clearly submitted that at least for the packages of Rupa, Itanagar and Naharlagun, though the Sub- Committee had accepted abnormally low bids, the LOI was not given to a different bidder. This Court has also verified and found that the Pasighat Package was made a part of the Sub-Committee at a subsequent stage. However, even without going to that aspect of the matter and considering that Pasighat was also one of the matters within the examination of the Sub-Committee, the very formation of the Sub-Committee clearly appears to be not in accordance with law. 33. What also intrigues this Court is that after the rejection of the attempt of the respondent No. 9 to justify its bid by the e-Tender Opening Board, there was no challenge and therefore, there was no occasion at all to re-open the matter. As already indicated above, no provision of law or the tender document has been able to be show under which the Sub-Committee has been formed. 34. In the communication dated 26.04.2024, the Superintending Engineer wrote to the Chief Engineer citing the reasons of rejection of the justification which reads as follows: “...1. The ex-works prices of major line materials from various vendors in Kolkata as given by M/s Win Power Infra Pvt. Ltd. in its justification letter are much lower than the ex-works prices quoted by three approved vendors from Kolkata for the same kind of materials, submitted to this office in response to our request. (copies enclosed as Annexure I). Therefore, it raises material concerns as by quoting unrealistically low bid, the bidder, if awarded the project, may compromise with the overall quality of products and works that may lead to failure of the project. 2. The price bid quoted by M/s Win Power Infra Pvt. Ltd., Guwahati is (-) 10.25% below the Minimum Justified Rate. In the Pre-Bid Meeting held on 25.01.2024, in response to the queries from some of the bidders present, it was categorically stated that the Justified Bid Price Range for Electrical Distribution System, as approved by the High-Level Technical Committee (HLTC) and circulated by the Secretary (Power) vide his letter No. PWRS/E134/2023/7453-73. Dt. 18.09.2023, would be complied with. In the Pre-Bid Meeting held on 25.01.2024, in response to the queries from some of the bidders present, it was categorically stated that the Justified Bid Price Range for Electrical Distribution System, as approved by the High-Level Technical Committee (HLTC) and circulated by the Secretary (Power) vide his letter No. PWRS/E134/2023/7453-73. Dt. 18.09.2023, would be complied with. The Minutes of the Pre-Bid Meeting was circulated vide this Office No. SE(E)II/WS-22/2023-24/1940-48, Dt. 25.01.2024, (copy enclosed as Annexure -II).” 35. This decision was not the subject matter of any challenge. As regards the Writ Petition (C) No. 179(AP)2024, the same was admittedly not for this package but for the Rupa Package. This Court has also carefully gone through the copies of few of the orders which were placed on record by the learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 9 and it appears that the Sub- Committee formation was not as per any direction of this Court and it was only conveyed to the Court that such a Sub-Committee was formed. As regards the submission made that the Sub-Committee was constituted to seek justification, this Court has found that the exercise was already done on 14.03.2024 when the same was found to be unacceptable by the e- Tender Opening Board which was conveyed to the respondent No. 9 on 22.03.2024. 36. The case laws relied upon by the petitioner clearly lay down that judicial review for contractual work can be for the decision-making process and not for the decision. In other words, it is the lawfulness and not the soundness of the decision which can be the subject matter of the scrutiny. Here in this case, though a justification has been sought to be made that all actions were taken in the interest of public service, such actions are not backed by the sanction of law. In the case of Tej Prakash (Supra) , as noted above, the larger Bench has clearly laid down that rules of the games cannot be changed after the game has begun or completed. In the instant case, there was a clear stipulation of applicability of the Memorandum, dated 18.09.2023 for the work in question, which is also fortified by the Minutes of the Pre-Bid Meeting held on 25.01.2024, which has been noted above. 37. In the instant case, there was a clear stipulation of applicability of the Memorandum, dated 18.09.2023 for the work in question, which is also fortified by the Minutes of the Pre-Bid Meeting held on 25.01.2024, which has been noted above. 37. So far as the reliance of the respondent No. 9 upon the case of BB Enterprise (supra) is concerned, though there is no dispute to the proposition that conclusions arrived by Specialized Committee are not to be interfered with as those Committees have special knowledge, in the instant case, this Court has noted that in that case, the Committee was as per an Office Memorandum and therefore, no interference was made. However, in the instant case, there was no legal backing for constitution of a Sub-Committee to seek justification coupled with the operation of the Memorandum, dated 18.09.2023 and therefore, the facts are totally distinguishable from the facts in hand. As regards the submission advanced on behalf of the Respondent No. 9 that certain other packages are also involved, so any interference made would also affect those packages, this Court is unable to accept the said contention. This Court is seized with the matter of the present work concerning the Pasighat Package, wherein, a decision taken is impugned and it is, in the context of that decision, that this Court is adjudicating the matter and has come to a conclusion. 38. In the conspectus of the aforesaid discussions and the facts and circumstances narrated above, this Court is of the opinion that a case for interference is made out. Accordingly, the impugned Letter of Intent (LoI), dated 15.01.2025 which was preceded by the decision to allot the work to the respondent No. 9 by the Department on the basis of the Sub-Committee Report, is set aside and quashed. 39. The matter is, accordingly, remanded back to the Department to allot the work to the eligible bidder, strictly in accordance with law. Since, the NIT concerns works of public importance, such allotment is to be done expeditiously and, preferably, within a period of 45 (Forty-Five) days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order. 40. The writ petition, accordingly, stands allowed. 41. Records returned to the learned Standing Counsel, Power. 42. No order as to cost.