Page No.# 1/11 GAHC040019512025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WA/46/2025 M/s Papu Hote Multipurpose Cooperative Society Ltd Papu Hote Village, PO and PS Pakke Kessang, District Pakke Kessang, Arunachal Pradesh represented through its Chairman Shri Tana Naya, APM, Village Papu Hote, PO and PS Pakke Kessang, District Pakke Kessang, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP and 9 Ors represented by the Chief Secretary, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh. 2:The Commissioner Food and Civil Supplies Age: 0 Occupation : Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 3:The Director Food and Civil Supplies Age: 0 Occupation : Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 4:The Deputy Commissioner Age: 0 Occupation : Pakke Kessang District Lemmi Arunachal Pradesh. 5:The Tender Evaluation Board/ Committee Age: 0 Occupation : Page No.# 2/11 with regard to NIT No. PK/SUP/PDS-01/2021 dated 10.12.2024 held on 23.12.2024 represented through its Chairman Shri Kamin Darang the Additional Deputy Commissioner Pakke Kessang District Arunachal Pradesh. 6:The District Food and Civil Supplies Officer cum Member Secretary Age: 0 Occupation : Tender Evaluation Board /Committee with retard to NIT No. PK/SUP/PDS-01/2021 dated 10.12.2024 held on 23.12.2024 Pakke Kessang District Arunachal Pradesh. 7:M/s Nangnyo Nampin Multi Purpose Cooperative Society Ltd Age: 0 Occupation : Nangnyo Village PO Pijirang PS Pakke Kessang District Pakke Kessang Arunachal Pradesh a registered Cooperative Society under the Arunachal Pradesh Cooperatives Societies Act 1978 represented through its Chairman Shri Ravindra Tana Tara 8:Ravindra Tana Tara Age: 0 Occupation : Son of Late Nerba Tana Village Nangnyo PO Pijirang PS Pakke Kessang Pakke Kessang District Arunachal Pradesh 790103 9:M/s Papu Pani Multipurpose Cooperative Society Ltd Age: 0 Occupation : Village Guntung PO Pijirang PS Pakke Kessang District Pakke Kessang Arunachal Pradesh. 10:M/s Baadhane Anne Multipurpose Cooperative Society Ltd Age: 0 Occupation : Page No.# 3/11 Pakke Kessang Town PO PS and District Pakke Kessang Arunachal Pradesh. Advocate for the petitioner :Ms Padmini Barua Advocate for the respondents : Mr. R. H. Nabam, AAG :::BEFORE::: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA Date on which judgment is reserved : N/A Date of pronouncement of judgment : 02.06.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the Operative part of the judgment : N/A Whether the full judgment has been Pronounced : Yes Judgment & Order (Oral) (S. K. Medhi, J.) The instant intra-court appeal has been filed against a judgment dated 11.11.2025, passed in WP(C) No.111(AP)/2025, whereby, the writ petition has been allowed. The present appellant was the respondent No. 7 in the said writ petition. Page No.# 4/11 2. The case has a chequered history. The issue has emanated from an NIT dated 10.12.2024 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Pakke Kessang District for carriage of PDS by land route in which the present appellant (respondent No.7) and the writ petitioner had participated. The evaluation was made on 10.01.2025, when the petitioner was selected and recommended. The said recommendation was, however, the subject matter of challenge in WP(C) No. 95(AP)/2025 filed by the writ petitioner. In the meantime, on 12.02.2025, the approval in favour of the present appellant was granted. Accordingly, on 28.07.2025, when WP(C) No. 95(AP)/2025 was listed, the learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioner had submitted that the cause of action had become infructuous and accordingly, the writ petition was closed. Thereafter, the present writ petition was filed being WP(C) No. 111(AP)/2025. 3. We have heard Ms Padmini Barua, learned counsel for the appellant. We have also heard Shri R.H. Nabam, the learned Additional Advocate General for the State. 4. So far as the writ petitioner is concerned who has been arrayed as respondent No.7 in this appeal, it is seen that in spite of the service of notice, the writ petitioner has chosen not to contest the appeal. In fact, there is an order dated 14.05.2026, passed by this Court, wherein the service upon the private respondents, including the writ petitioner has been held to be complete. 5. Ms Barua, the learned counsel for the appellant has, at the outset, submitted that the writ petitioner did not have the locus to institute the Page No.# 5/11 challenge. She has submitted that the writ petitioner was an unsuccessful bidder and accordingly, could not have challenged the process in which her client was evaluated to be the suitable party. She has submitted that this aspect has not been properly considered by the learned Single Judge. She has also submitted that though various grounds of challenge were taken, the principal ground was in the aspect of the Bank Guarantee and the Earnest Money Deposit, pertaining to her client. It was the case of the writ petitioner that the Bank Guarantee was not from a nationalised bank in terms of the standard condition of the tender, but from the Arunachal Pradesh Co-operative Apex Bank. As regard the Earnest Money Deposit, she has clarified that though the deposit was not from the account of her client but from one entity of which the Chairman was also the Chairman of the appellant cooperative society. She has submitted that in the evaluation conducted on 10.01.2025, all the relevant factors were taken into consideration. Emphasis has been drawn to the note where there is a consideration on the numbers of godowns and vehicles and it is submitted that on these relevant considerations, the recommendation in favour of her client was given. She has further submitted that, though after the judgement dated 11.01.2025, a new process was initiated, there is an order passed in an appeal not to finalise the same. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant, in support of her submissions, has relied upon the following judgments:- 1. Poddar Steel Corporation Vs. Ganesh Engineering Works& Ors, reported in (1991) 3 SCC 273; 2. Central Coalfields Limited and Another Vs. SLL-SML Page No.# 6/11 (Joint Venture Consortium) & Ors, reported in (2016) 8 SCC 622; and 3. N.G. Projects Limited Vs. Vinod Kumar Jain & Ors reported in (2022) 6 SCC 127. 7. The aforesaid cases have been cited primarily to impress upon the Court that interpretation of the terms of the tender lies within the discretion of the tendering authority and the scope of judicial review is minimal. She also submits that the respondent authorities had filed an affidavit-in-opposition, wherein they have given the justification for recommending her client. 8. Shri R. H. Nabam, learned AAG, has submitted that the impugned decision was sought to be justified in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No.4. However, as a matter of fact, after passing of the judgment dated 11.11.2025, a new process has been initiated which is almost complete. He has also submitted that the new process has not been put challenge, and therefore, the embargo put by this Court on 26.05.2026 be removed as there is urgency in the matter as it relates to Public Distribution System. 9. The rival submissions have been duly considered, and the materials placed before this Court, including the pleadings before the learned Single Judge have been carefully perused. 10. At the outset, we are reminded of the settled position of law that in the matters of tender, the discretion of the tendering authority has to be Page No.# 7/11 given importance, unless such discretion appears to have been exercised in illegal and unreasonable manner. 11. The initial recommendation dated 10.01.2025, as a matter of fact, was a subject of challenge in WP(C) No. 95(AP)/2025. However, the said writ petition was submitted to be infructuous and in the meantime, the approval was granted on 12.02.2025. Accordingly, the earlier writ petition being WP(C) No.95 (AP)/2025 was closed as infructuous on the submission of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner on 28.07.2025. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that after such dismissal, the petitioner had started the work and was continuing. Be that as it may, the subsequent writ petition being WP(C) No. 111(AP)/2025 was instituted challenging the grant of approval dated 12.02.2025. 12. We have, however, noted that though in the evaluation dated 10.01.2025, the writ petitioner was held to be not eligible, such decision was not per se put to challenge in the present writ petition. On the other hand, the petition has been instituted, mainly challenging the allotment of the work to the appellant, in spite of the fact that the bid of the appellant had suffered from major defects. 13. The learned Single Judge had considered the aspect of locus and has held that the petitioner had the locus. Having gone through the discussion, we do not find that there is any reason of taking a different view and therefore, the petition is held to be maintainable as the petitioner had, in fact, participated in the bidding process and was not recommended vide the Minutes of meeting dated 10.01.2025. We have Page No.# 8/11 also taken note of the fact that the initial evaluation dated 10.01.2025 was indeed the subject matter of challenge in the first writ petition being WP(C) No.95(AP)/2025 which was, however, withdrawn as infructuous. 14. As regards the primarily grounds of challenge, we have noted that the two grounds revolves around the Bank Guarantee and EMD. So far as the Bank Guarantee is concerned, there is a stipulation in the tender condition that such Bank Guarantee has to be from a nationalised bank. The Tender Committee had, however, accepted the Bank Guarantee of the appellant which was from the Arunachal Pradesh Co-operative Apex Bank. We are of the view that the discretion exercised by the Tender Committee so far as the Bank Guarantee is concerned may not be held to be so glaringly illegal, which would require an interference in exercise of the powers of judicial review. After all, the objective is to secure the work is completed by the party. There is, however, a different issue so far as EMD is concerned. The EMD has been deposited from the account of one M/s HT Enterprise. 15. The learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously argued that the Chairman of M/s HT Enterprise is also the Chairman of the appellant. Though the aforesaid averment may be correct as a matter of fact, M/s HT Enterprise is a different entity altogether. The respondent No.4, in its affidavit filed on 20.06.2025 had dealt with the issue in paragraph-8(i).For the sake of clarity, the said averments are extracted herein below:- “8(i) The earnest money Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs) only of private respondent No. was deposited in form of Deposit at receipt/ fixed deposit in favour of the Deputy Commissioner, Pakke Kessang Page No.# 9/11 District through the account of M/s HT Enterprise and submitted to the tendering authorities as his earnest money. There is no clause specified that earnest money ought to be submitted from the Bank account of Bidder in the terms and condition of tender. The clause 4(i) of terms and conditions of tender, it has been only mentioned that "Earnest Money of Rs 2,00,000/-only in form of Deposit at call receipt/Fixed Deposit receipt in favour of the Deputy Commissioner, Pakke Kessang District. Therefore, the tendering authorities have accepted the EMD of private respondent No.6.” 16. Though the settled law is that the tendering authority should be left to exercise their discretion, the discretion exercised, so far as interpreting the EMD deposited in the name of another entity to be in consonance with the Clause 4(i) does not appear to be reasonable at all. The same would lead to an absurd situation wherein any other entity would deposit the EMD which would open a floodgate, wherein the works would be done in the name of somebody else, which is not the purpose of the present scheme. The scheme is mainly for cooperative society and both the appellant and the respondent No.7 are, in fact, cooperative societies. 17. The interference by the Hon’ble Single Judge on this aspect is found in paragraph-28 of the judgment, the relevant part of which reads as follows:- “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 bld of respondent No. 7, which are most noticeable. The first noticeable defect in the tender is that the respondent Page No.# 10/11 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)...” 18. We are of the opinion that the conclusion reached by the learned Single Judge, on this aspect, is in the right direction and we concur with the same. 19. In view of the above, we do not find the present case to be a fit case for interference. In any case, the scope of interference in an intra-court appeal is limited and unless the view of the learned Single Judge is so unreasonable or perverse, the same should not be disturbed. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Management of Narendra & Company Private Ltd. Vs. Workmen of Narendra and Company reported in (2016) 3 SCC 340, has laid down as follows:- “4……….Be that as it may, in an intra-court appeal, on a finding of fact, unless the appellate Bench reaches a conclusion that the finding of the Single Bench is perverse, it shall not disturb the same. Merely because another view or a better view is possible, there should be no interference with or disturbance of the order passed by the Single Judge, unless both sides agree for a fairer approach on relief.” 20. In view of the above, the writ appeal stands dismissed. The embargo put by this Court in the order dated 26.05.2026 is removed. The respondent authorities would be at the liberty to go ahead and finalise the Page No.# 11/11 new tender process in accordance with law. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant