Page No.# 1/21 GAHC040019032025 2025:GAU-AP:1407-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WA/45/2025 M/s Badri Rai and Company represented by its Managing Partner and PoA Holder Shri Arun Kumar Rai and through its duly authorized representative Shri Kali Yomcha, resident of Village Yomcha, PO Yomcha, PS Yomcha, West Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP and 5 Ors represented by the Commissioner, PWD, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar. 2:The Chief Engineer (Western Zone) Age: 0 Occupation : PWD Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Pasighat East Siang District Arunachal Pradesh 3:The Superintending Engineer Age: 0 Occupation : Aalo Civil Circle PWD West Siang District Arunachal Pradesh. 4:The Executive Engineer Age: 0 Occupation : PWD Yomcha Division West Siang District Page No.# 2/21 Arunachal Pradesh. 5:Doge Nyigyor Age: 0 Occupation : presently serving as Executive Engineer PWD Yomcha Division West Siang District Arunachal Pradesh. 6:Mebom Ete Age: 0 Occupation : presently serving as Assistant Engineer PWD Yomcha Division West Siang District Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : Marto Kato, Kamin Teri,Tony Meto,Yasmin Gao,Jumge Karbak,Mepe Ete,Nyali Sora Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), Doge Lona,Daina Tamuk,Dicky Panging Date of Hearing : 10.12.2025 Date of Judgment : 18.12.2025 Whether the pronouncement is of the operative part of the Judgment? : NA Whether the full Judgment has been pronounced? : Yes BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV) (A.M. Kalita, J) Heard Mr. M. Kato, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. R. H. Nabam, learned Addl. Advocate General representing the State Page No.# 3/21 respondent nos. 1 to 4 and Mr. D. Panging, learned counsel, representing the respondent nos. 5 & 6. 2. The instant intra-Court writ appeal has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 24.10.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP (C) No. 326(AP)/2025. 3. The facts of the case as projected in the instant writ appeal are that the appellant is a Registered Class-1(A) Contractor in Public Works (Building) Department, Government of Assam, having the Registration No. RF/DIB/163/B/35 of 2012-13, represented by it’s Managing Partner and Power of Attorney holder, Shri Arun Kumar Rai through it’s duly authorized representative, Shri Kali Yomcha. 4. The Executive Engineer, Yomcha Division, PWD, Arunachal Pradesh, invited online item rate e-Tendering in Double Bid system from Registered and eligible contractors in Class-1/IA/IAA(B & R) category in APPWD and other State PWDs, CPWD, MES, BRO and Railway for an estimated cost of Rs. 2970.00 Lakhs, by way of a Notice Inviting e-Tender (In short NIeT) vide No. YCAD/CMCSRDP-II/WS-31/2025-26/647 dated 30.06.2025. 5. As per the aforesaid NIeT, availability of tenders, online, for bidders was from 30.06.2025 (1630 hrs) to 14.07.2025 (1600 hrs). As far as the online submission of bids is concerned, the start date was mentioned as 01.07.2025 (1000 hrs) and the end date was mentioned as 14.07.2025 (1600 hrs). The date of opening of the bid was mentioned as 15.07.2025 (1030 hrs). The bids can be deposited before the time specified by paying the cost of documents (non- refundable) in cash of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand only) along with the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) and other original documents to the Executive Engineer, Yomcha Division, PWD, Arunachal Pradesh from 30.06.2025 to Page No.# 4/21 05.07.2025 during office hours. It was also mentioned that before submission of the online bids, the bidders must be ensured that the scanned copies of all necessary documents have been attached with the bids. It was also mentioned that the details of the cost of the bid documents and the bid security, specified in the tender document should be the same as submitted online (scanned copies) otherwise, the same will be summarily rejected. It was also mentioned that cost of the documents and the bid security in the form specified in the bidding document, should be deposited with Executive Engineer, Yomcha Division, PWD, Arunachal Pradesh, as provided in the invitation for bids, failing which, the bidder shall be disqualified. It was provided that to participate in the tender, the bidders have to pay Rs. 10,000/- towards fee for bid documents (non-refundable) in cash, to Executive Engineer, Yomcha Division, PWD, Arunachal Pradesh, from 30.06.2025 to 05.07.2025 during office hours at the specified opening place. 6. It is the contention of the appellant that although the period of availability of the bid documents was scheduled from 30.06.2025 to 14.07.2025, an additional and unreasonable condition was incorporated in the tender notice, requiring physical submission of original EMD, tender processing fee and other original tender related documents to the office of the Executive Engineer, Yomcha Division, PWD, Arunachal Pradesh, between 30.06.2025 to 05.07.2025. The requirement, given the geographical and logistical limitation of the location, is highly impractical and exclusionary thereby, adversely effected the fair participation in the bidding process. 7. It is the case of the appellant that since the last date for submission of the original documents, processing fees and EMD was 05.07.2025, the authorized representative of the appellant visited the office of the Executive Engineer, Yomcha Division, PWD, Arunachal Pradesh, from 02.07.2025 to 05.07.2025 Page No.# 5/21 with a valid bank draft of Rs. 10,000/- as processing fee, however, in absence of the Executive Engineer, Yomcha Division, PWD, the subordinate officials, despite being endorsed to receive the documents, unofficially acknowledged the documents and kept them in office room without initiating the official procedure, citing strict verbal instructions from the Executive Engineer, Yomcha Division, PWD not to act, as a result of which, the processing fees could not be received. It is further contended by the appellant that the Executive Engineer, Yomcha Division, PWD, remained unavailable during the whole crucial period due to which appellant could not submit the aforesaid documents along with the processing fee and EMD which resulted in arbitrary denial to the appellant of fair opportunity to participate in the tender process. It is also contended by the appellant that facing with the aforesaid situation, the appellant had filed a series of representations before the concerned authorities, requesting immediate intervention or modification or cancellation of the tender process. However, the said representations remained unanswered. 8. It was also contended that despite several personal approaches as well as verbal requests, the authorized subordinate officers of the Department expressed their helplessness and to that effect, an official recording, in writing was issued stating that they were unable to initiate the process of receiving the processing fees as the same was not possible due to the unavailability of the concerned Executive Engineer, who is the competent authority to accept and process such documents. It was further contended that the subordinate officers clarified that ever since the initiation of the tender process, the concerned Executive Engineer, remained absent from duty, thereby, causing procedural hindrance, resulting in denial of opportunity to intending bidders including the appellant. The appellant contended that ultimately, the Superintending Engineer, Aalo Circle, PWD, issued a Corrigendum dated 04.07.2025, Page No.# 6/21 whereby, the last date for submission of the original documents and processing fees, was extended to 10.07.2025 in response to the representations filed by the appellant before the concerned authorities. It was contended that though the date was extended and in spite of several visits of the appellant to the office of the Executive Engineer, Yomcha Division, PWD, to submit the original documents and the processing fee, the Executive Engineer, Yomcha Division, PWD, remained unavailable in his office. It was contended that owing to the continuous absence and inaction of the concerned Executive Engineer, the appellant was compelled to lodge an FIR against the aforesaid Executive Engineer. Accordingly, the Officer-In-Charge, Yomcha Police Station, issued summons to the concerned Executive Engineer, directing him to appear before him. It was contended that apprehending manipulation of the tender documents, the appellant had also requested the District Commissioner to keep the documents under safe custody and accordingly, the Addl. District Commissioner, Yomcha, issued an order directing the Superintending Engineer, PWD, Aalo Circle and the Superintendent of Police, West Siang District to ensure that the tender documents be transported under escort and to be kept safely in the office of the Superintending Engineer. 9. It is the case of the appellant that despite the aforesaid effort, the concerned Executive Engineer remained absent throughout the extended period and thereby, caused the deadline to lapse without allowing the appellant to participate in the tender process, for which, the appellant sought for a departmental enquiry against the concerned Executive Engineer for gross misconduct and procedural lapses and also requested to review the tender process to ensure transparency and prevent any misuse of an administrative power. It is contended that the concerned Executive Engineer, in spite of the aforesaid, issued an order dated 14.07.2025, for constituting a Board for Page No.# 7/21 opening of the tender scheduled on 15.07.2025 at 10:30 AM at the office of the Superintending Engineer. It was contended that the appellant, though, had submitted complete set of tender documents fulfilling all required Terms and Conditions before the office of the concerned Executive Engineer, due to inaction and non-initiation on the part of the concerned Executive Engineer in formally accepting the tender documents, the appellant was prevented from uploading or submitting the bid online and thereby, depriving the appellant from participating in the tender process. 10. Being so deprived from participating in the tender process and highly aggrieved by the action of the concerned Executive Engineer being remained absent all through the crucial time of submission of the tender documents, the appellant had filed the writ petition before this Court. 11. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties and in consideration of the documents available, dismissed the writ petition, vide it’s order dated 24.10.2025, wherein, the learned Single Judge had come to the following findings: - “28. In the present case, as noted above, it is clearly provided under Clause-3 of the conditions of contract under Additional Special Condition of the tender that the bidders/authorised representative shall produce the original identity proof i.e. PAN Card, Aadhaar Card, Contractor Registration Certificate on the stipulated date, failing which no processing fee shall be received or processing fee received not in order shall be summarily rejected. Admittedly, as per the records, the petitioner has not fulfilled the said Terms and Conditions as the petitioner has failed to submit the original documents as required under the required conditions. Thus, in my view, the rejection of the bid of the petitioner is in accordance with the terms of the tender and claim of the petitioner to the effect that Page No.# 8/21 he has been deprived of participation in the said tender on account of short period of time and absence of Executive Engineer falls flat and is rejected.” 29. 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”. 12. Mr. M. Kato, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the learned Single Judge had completely failed to appreciate the fact that in spite of his several attempts and being physically visiting the office of the respondent no. 4, during the stipulated period, to produce the original documents, as required under Clause-3 of the Additional Special Condition of the tender, could not submit the required documents due to the continuous absence of the concerned Executive Engineer from his service. He submits that the learned Single Judge failed to take into consideration the appellant’s specific and consistent plea, supported by written statements of subordinate officials that the concerned Executive Engineer remained absent for several consecutive days during the submission window and thereby, making it impossible for the appellant to complete the original documents’ verification and payment of the processing fees. He submits that the finding that has been arrived at by the learned Single Judge that the concerned Executive Engineer was not absent is contrary to the materials on record. He submits that the holding by the learned Single Judge that the appellant had failed to submit the original documents is incorrect as, in fact, the appellant was never given an opportunity to submit those original documents due to the non-availability of the concerned Executive Engineer. He submits that since the documents were never been processed or taken up Page No.# 9/21 officially, the question of rejection of the appellant’s tender did not arise at all and therefore, the finding of non-responsiveness is perverse and contrary to law. 13. Mr. Kato, learned counsel further submits that though the Corrigendum dated 05.07.2025 was issued extending the submission date to 10.07.2025, it became meaningless because even during the extended period, the concerned Executive Engineer was absent from the office. He submits that the learned Single Judge has miserably failed to consider the fact that a written statement was issued by a subordinate officer dated 05.07.2025, which specifically mentioned that they were unable to receive or process the documents due to continuous absence of the Executive Engineer. He submits that this vital fact was not duly considered in proper perspective by the learned Single Judge. He submits that the appellant was communicated rejection on 03.07.2025, is unsustainable because, no such communication was ever received or served on the appellant. He submits that the claim of the respondent authorities of issuing the aforesaid communication dated 03.07.2025, is totally unsustainable as the respondent authorities, by way of their affidavit could not produce any evidence of receipt of such communication by the appellant by any means or any acknowledgment of receipt by the appellant. He submits that issuance of the aforesaid communication being a disputed fact and consideration of the same by the learned Single Judge is not tenable and the same is perverted. 14. Mr. M. Kato, the learned counsel for the appellant, submits that since in the instant case, the tender was invited by a public authority, it is the bounden duty of the authority to conduct the tender process in a fair and transparent manner by giving all the opportunities to the prospective bidders to participate in the tender so that the best price could be received by the public authority. In the instant case, he submits that by denying submission of the bid documents Page No.# 10/21 to the appellant, the respondent authority being a public authority, had denied the appellant a fair opportunity to participate in the bidding process. In this connection, the learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the case of M/s Shanti Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State of Odisha & Ors., (out of SLP (c) No. 16140 of 2023) decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 07.11.2025 as well as the case of Pragmatic Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, through Director Pranvir Singh Kushwaha Vs. Madhya Pradesh Housing and Infrastructure Development Board & Others., (WP No. 11842 of 2025), decided by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior on 16.10.2025. 15. In view of the aforesaid submissions by Mr. Kato, learned counsel for the appellant, he essentially asserted the fact that due to the negligence attitude of the concerned Executive Engineer by remaining absent from his office during the notified period under the NIeT, the appellant has been illegally and arbitrarily denied of his opportunity to participate in the instant tender process. He submits that due to no fault of his, his tender has been illegally rejected by the respondent authorities and therefore, he submits that the conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge that due to his non-filing/submission of the original documents and processing fee, is not correct and therefore, the rejection of his writ petition is not tenable under the law. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant prays that the impugned judgment dated 24.10.2024 should be set aside and quashed. 16. Mr. R. H. Nabam, learned Addl. Advocate General, appearing for the State respondents, submits that the office of the Executive Engineer, PWD, Yomcha Division, specially mentioned 30.06.2025 to 05.07.2025 as the period for submission of processing fee and production of bidders’ original documents like Pan Card, Aadhaar Card, Contractor Registration Certificate Page No.# 11/21 etc., as laid down under the Additional Special Conditions of the bid documents under Clause-26. He submits that Clause-26 cannot be termed as unreasonable. He further submits that the appellant’s claim that the time for submission of the aforesaid documents was short due to geographical location and logistic issues is untenable. 17. Referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no. 4, the learned Addl. AG submits that the concerned Executive Engineer along with all officials and staffs of Yomcha, PWD Division were present in station during the specified time including the pre-bid meeting scheduled on 05.07.2025 at the office of the Executive Engineer, PWD. He submits that after deputing subordinate officers for receiving the bid documents, including the processing fee etc, the Executive Engineer, PWD, Yomcha Division, went for site inspection visits and quary visits along with the representatives of other 2(two) bidders who were found to be eligible until that point of time, because of their submission of documents as per the Terms and Conditions of the NIeT. He further submits that the Executive Engineer had, in fact, immediately processed the document of the appellant as well as another bidder which were received by his deputed officials on 03.07.2025 and 04.07.2025 respectively. He further submits that on scrutiny of the documents, since the original documents could not be found with the bid submitted by the appellant and thereby, non-fulfilment of Section 3, Conditions of Contract under Additional Special Conditions mentioned at Clause-26, issued a letter on the very same date to the authorized representative of the appellant as well as another bidder for doing the needful, so as to give them sufficient time for resubmission of all required documents. In view of the aforesaid, the learned Addl. AG submits that the claims made by the appellant regarding absence of the concerned Executive Engineer as well as the verbal instruction not to Page No.# 12/21 accept the documents of the appellant is totally incorrect as apparent from the materials available before this Court. He submits that though the documents of the appellant were accepted, due to non-fulfilment of Section 3, Conditions of Contract under Additional Special Conditions, at the time of processing, the bid of the appellant was not processed and in view of the same, the aforesaid letter dated 03.07.2025 was issued to the appellant. 18. The learned Addl. AG while referring to a xerox copy of the Register maintained by the office of the Executive Engineer, PWD, Yomcha Division in connection to the instant NIeT, submits that there is a clear recording in the Register against the name of the appellant that one Shri Kali Yomcha, the authorised representative of the appellant was immediately intimated about the shortfall of the documents i.e., non-submission of Pan Card, Aadhaar Card, Contractor Registration Certificate etc. He submits that a letter was immediately issued on 30.07.2025, intimating about those shortfalls to the authorised representative of the appellant which clearly mentions that a bidder, in the event of failing to fulfil the above conditions of approved uploaded NIeT, may be treated as non-responsive. He submits that though there is a submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the same letter was not received by the appellant, the same submission is totally incorrect as evident from the aforesaid Register maintained in the office of the Executive Engineer, PWD, Yomcha Division wherein, an initial against the name of Shri Kali Yomcha is present. He further submits that in addition to the issuance of the letter, a scanned copy of the letter was also sent to the mobile number of the authorized representative i.e. Shri Kali Yomcha on the same very date and the same could be seen as “received” by the aforesaid representative of the appellant. 19. The learned Addl. AG has referred to Page No. 147 of the instant appeal, Page No.# 13/21 wherein, the aforesaid Whatsapp communication could be seen. The learned Addl. AG has also submitted before this Court the original Register maintained in the office of the Executive Engineer, PWD, Yomcha Division as referred above for perusal and verification by this Court. He submits that there was no direction issued for not receiving any bid documents or processing fee of any tenders to any officials or staffs by the Executive Engineer, PWD, Yomcha Division. He further submits that the concerned Executive Engineer was on official duty and he had been busy in site visits and other official works and the same was duly communicated to his superior officers after deputing subordinate officials to do the normal works, including the receipt of documents from the prospective bidders. 20. The learned Addl. AG submits that altogether 4(four) bidders, namely, M/s H.B. Enterprises, M/s T. J. Enterprises, M/s Rinya Yangfo Enterprises and M/s Badri Rai & Company submitted their documents through their authorized representatives. However, out of the 4(four) bidders, documents of only 2(two) bidders, namely, M/s T. J. Enterprises and M/s H.B. Enterprises were found to be correct and in accordance with the requirements and as such, their documents including processing fee and EMD were accepted. The remaining two bidders, namely, M/s Rinya Yangfo Enterprises and the appellant, documents submitted by them did not fulfil the criteria as prescribed under Section 3, Conditions of Contract and Additional Special Conditions at the time of submission/collection of processing fees and hence, were found not eligible for further processing. He submits that re-submission opportunities and time were provided to the remaining two bidders for submission of the required documents, they failed to do so and therefore, their bid documents were not processed. He submits that in spite of extension of the date of submission of the bid documents till 10.07.2025, the present appellant Page No.# 14/21 failed to submit the required documents as per the tender conditions and therefore, their bid documents were not considered to be completed and hence, the same were not further processed for consideration of opening. In view of the aforesaid submissions, the Addl. AG submits that the instant appeal lacks merit and the same may be rejected by upholding the Judgment passed by the learned Single Judge dated 24.10.2025. 21. Mr. D. Panging, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents no. 5 & 6 subscribed to the submissions made by the learned Addl. AG. Mr. Panging submits that the bidding documents submitted by the appellant was not processed due to the shortfall in submission of original documents and processing fee in terms of Clause 26 of the Additional Special Conditions of the tender, which mandates production of bidders’ original identity proof i.e., Pan Card, Aadhaar Card and Contractor Registration Certificate during the specified time. He submits that non-production or submission of the aforesaid documents, no processing fee received could be issued by the concerned officials. He submits that the process of submission of tender documents, including the receipt of processing and EMD was duly carried out as per the terms conditions of the NIeT and the other prospective bidders were able to comply with the same within the specified period. He further submits that the Register that has been produced before this Court clearly reveals that the authorized representative of the appellant was duly intimated about the shortfall in submission of the documents on the same very date when the appellant submitted the bid documents before the concerned authority, however, though there was an extension of time period for submission of the bid documents, the appellant failed to submit the required documents. Therefore, there is nothing wrong committed by the concerned respondent authority in not processing the bid documents of the appellant for opening. He Page No.# 15/21 submits that the appellant and the another bidder, M/s Rinya Yangfo Enterprises were found to be non-responsive for further process and therefore, at this stage, the appellant cannot pray for any initiation of fresh tender at this stage. He further submits that the respondent authorities are the right persons to decide fulfilment and non-fulfilment of the tender conditions and in the instant case also, the respondent authorities have rightly taken the decision for non-processing of the bid documents of the appellant in view of non- fulfilment of the specified conditions mentioned at Clause 26 of the Additional Special Conditions of the tender process. He submits that the respondent authorities can choose it’s own method to arrive at a decision and to fix it’s own terms of inviting tender and that is not open to judicial scrutiny. He submits that a judicial review in the tender process though is allowed in certain circumstances, the same is limited and the Court should always keep the larger public interest in mind in order to decide whether Court’s intervention is needed or not. He submits that only when it comes to a conclusion that overwhelming public interest requires interference, the Court should intervene. In this connection, the learned counsel has referred to the case of Air India Ltd. Vs. Cochin International Airport Ltd. and Others, reported in (2000) 2 SCC 617. 22. We have gone through the materials brought before this Court as well as heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties. 23. From the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the pleadings made in the memo of appeal, it is discernible that the main contention of the appellant in the appeal is that, the time period of 30.06.2025 to 05.07.2025 for submission of bid documents was too short due to geographical and logistical issues. The other primary contention of the appellant is that during the aforesaid short period, by remaining absent in Page No.# 16/21 official hours by the Executive Engineer, PWD, Yomcha Division, the appellant was, in fact, made incapable of submitting the required bid documents as per the Terms and Conditions of the NIeT. It may be relevant at this point of time to refer to Clause 5 of the NIeT and Clause 26 of the Additional Special Conditions of the tender, which are extracted herein below: - “Clause 5 of NIeT "5. The bids can be deposited before the time specified by paying the cost of the bidding documents (non-refundable) in Cash of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) only along with the EMD and other original documents to the "Executive Engineer, Yomcha Division, PWD, A.P." from 30/06/25 to 05/07/2025 during office Hrs at the specified opening place for the work listed in the tender, Before submission of online bids, the bidders must ensure that the scanned copy of all the necessary documents have been attached with the Bids. The details of the cost of documents and the Bid Security specified in the tender document should be same as submitted online (Scanned copies), otherwise will be summarily rejected. The department does not take any responsibility for delay caused due to non- availability or slow internet connection or network, traffic jam etc for online bids. Clause 26 of Additional Special Condition of tender. "26. Processing Fee shall be collected from the Division Office, PWD Yomcha from the assigned person and duly counter signed by Assistant Engineer, Yomcha PWD Sub-Division by the bidder/authorized representative on production of bidders original identify proof viz: Pan Card, Aadhar Card, Contract Registration certificate on 30/06/2025 to 05/07/2025, failing which no processing fee shall be received or processing fee receipt not in order shall be summarily rejected.” Page No.# 17/21 24. On a bare perusal of the above clauses, it is discernible that the processing fee shall be collected from the Division Office, PWD, Yomcha from the assigned person and duly counter signed by the Assistant Engineer, Yomcha PWD Sub-Division by the bidder/authorized representative on production of bidders original identity proof, i.e., Pan Card, Aadhaar Card and Contractor Registration Certificate during the period of 30.06.2025 to 05.07.2025, failing which no processing fee shall be received or processing fee receipt not in order shall be summarily rejected. So, the aforesaid Clause 26 makes it clear that processing fee will be accepted only when bidders’ original identity proof such as Pan Card, Aadhaar Card and Contractor Registration Certificate are produced before the assigned officer. 25. The above mentioned Clause 5 of NIeT also provides that details of the cost of documents and bid security specified in the tender documents should be same as submitted online (Scanned copies), otherwise, the same will be summarily rejected. It was further provided that before submission of online bids, the bidders must ensure that scanned copies of all necessary documents attached with the bid. 26. The records produced before this Court also reveals that vide an office order dated 30.06.2025, the concerned Executive Engineer, had authorized one Shri Damken Gamlin, J.E., Shri Barat Yasing, Junior Estimator and Shri Mitu Jilen, UDC to receive the applications from bidders from 30.06.2025 to 05.07.2025 in connection with “up-gradation of Yomcha ADC HQ to Liromoba EAC HQ road under (CMCSRDP-II)”. 27. Vide another office order dated 04.07.2025, issued by the concerned Executive Engineer, it was intimated that as he would be on site visits on 05.07.2025, Er. Mebom Ete, Assistant Surveyor of works-cum-Assistant Page No.# 18/21 Engineer, Yomcha PWD Sub-Division will conduct the pre-bid meeting as the scheduled time in the NIeT for the work “up-gradation of the aforesaid Yomcha ADC HQ to Liromoba EAC HQ road under (CMCSRDP-II)”. It is also seen that vide an office order dated 12.07.2025, issued by the concerned Executive Engineer that he would be on casual leave on 14.07.2025 and Shri Mebom Ete (ASW), Yomcha PWD Sub-Division would be looking after normal routine work. 28. What is apparent from the aforesaid letters is that though the concerned Executive Engineer was not present during all the time in the specified period from 30.06.2025 to 14.07.2025, other sub-ordinate officers have been authorized by him to collect the bidding documents and to carry on other official work like holding of the pre-bid meeting in connection with the instant NIeT. It is also seen from the records that a letter dated 03.07.2025 was issued to the authorized representative of the appellant after scrutiny of the bid documents by the concerned office of the Executive Engineer, PWD, Yomcha Division. This fact is clearly discernible from the page of the Register wherein, the records of receipt of the documents and non-submission of required documents by the appellant were clearly mentioned. 29. This Court has also perused the original Register of the office of the Executive Engineer, PWD, Yomcha Division, which confirms the noting and remarks made in the Register. This Court has also seen that the aforesaid letter dated 03.07.2025 was, in fact, sent through the Whatsapp medium also to the concerned authorized representative of the appellant, which seems to have been delivered in the mobile phone of the authorized representative of the appellant. Therefore, the claims and submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be taken as correct, as is apparent from the aforementioned documents. Page No.# 19/21 30. This Court has also considered the representations filed by the appellant before the respondent authorities. It is seen from the representation dated 04.07.2025, submitted by the appellant before the Commissioner, PWD, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, the main grievance as mentioned in the representation was regarding the additional Clause that was inserted whereby requiring all the bidders to submit original identity proofs, EMD and processing fee, strictly within 30.06.2025 to 05.07.2025. The appellant contended in the aforesaid representation that the Clause was directly inconsistent with the CPWD works manual and CPC guidelines, which clearly stipulate that physical submission of original documents, shall only be required after the expiry of online bid submission period to ensure fair participation and compliance verification, though there was a mention about the absence of the concerned Executive Engineer in his office. By filing the aforesaid representation, a special request was, in fact, made to direct the concerned Executive Engineer to modify the disputed Clause requiring submission of original documents before 05.07.2025 and extend the deadline to allow all the participants to submit original documents on or before 14.07.2025. In fact, in view of the aforesaid representation, the time period for submission was accordingly extended to 10.07.2025 by the concerned respondent authority. 31. It is also seen that before the expiry of the aforesaid extension period for submission as for physical submission of EMD, tender fees and other necessary documents, the appellant failed to submit the required documents within the specified period. Thereafter, only on 14.07.2025, the appellant has submitted another representation alleging that due to the absence of the concerned Executive Engineer on site, the sub-ordinate officials, who have been authorized to receive the documents, verbally communicated to the appellant that they had instructions from the concerned Executive Engineer Page No.# 20/21 not to receive or act on any submissions in his absence. 32. What is notable in the aforesaid representation is that though there was a mention that the concerned Executive Engineer remained absent deliberately from his office during the critical days, i.e. 30.06.2025 to 05.07.2025, no allegation, as such, has been made that the concerned Executive Engineer was, in fact, not present during the extended period of 05.07.2025 to 10.07.2025. 33. From a cumulative reading of the aforesaid documents, it is clearly discernible that though the time period was extended from 05.07.2025 to 10.07.2025, the appellant failed to submit the required documents as per Clause 26 of the Additional Special Conditions of the tender process. 34. It is a settled law that an eligible bid to be considered for processing, the same needs to be filed as per the Terms and Conditions stipulated in the tender documents. A tendering authority always has the power to reject a bid when it is found to be not in terms with the tender conditions. In the instant case also, it is seen that though the bid documents were submitted by the appellant, the bid documents were not complete due to non-submission of the processing fee as well as the original identity proofs of the bidder by way of producing the Pan Card, Aadhaar Card and the Contractor Registration Certificate, which is, in fact, mandated by Clause 26 of the Additional Special Conditions of Contract under Section 3 of the Contract Conditions. Therefore, it is apparent that the appellant failed to submit complete bidding documents within the stipulated time in the instant contract. 35. In view of the aforesaid findings arrived at by this Court, we are of the view that further discussion on the case laws referred to by the respective parties is not required at this stage. 36. In view of our considered findings as mentioned above, we are of the Page No.# 21/21 view that the instant writ appeal does not merit any interference from this Court. 37. In view of the aforesaid, the interim order so passed earlier, vide order dated 24.10.2025, is hereby vacated. 38. Accordingly, the instant writ appeal is hereby dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant