Page No.# 1/19 GAHC040005512025 2026:GAU-AP:517 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/163/2025 M/s T T Enterprises having its registered office at Papu Nallah, PO Naharlagun, PS Papu Nallah, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh (represented by its proprietor Shri Tadam Taku) resident of Papu Nallah, PO Naharlagun, PS Papu Nallah, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The Union of India and 5 Ors represented by the Secretary, Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, Govt of India, New Delhi 110001 2:The Food Corporation of India Age: 0 Occupation : represented by its Chairman and Managing Director 16-20 Barakhamba Lane New Delhi 110001 3:The Executive Director (NE) Age: 0 Occupation : Food Corporation of India Zonal Office (NE) Guwahati-7 Assam. 4:The Divisional Manager Age: 0 Occupation : FCI Page No.# 2/19 DO Banderdewa Arunachal Pradesh PO and PS Banderdewa Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 5:The General Manger (R) Age: 0 Occupation : FCI RO Itanagar E Sector JNK School Building APPSC Road Itanagar PO and PS Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 6:The Tender Evaluation Committee Age: 0 Occupation : (Regional Office) Food Corporation of India Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : Dicky Panging, Sr. Adv, T Mingki,Likha Moriam,Daina Tamuk,Ojing Pada Advocate for the Respondent : Marto Kato, SC (FCI),B K Singh Page No.# 3/19 :::BEFORE::: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE Date on which judgment is reserved : 20.05.2026 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 26.05.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the operative of the judgment? : No Whether the full judgment has been pronounced? : Yes JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV) Heard Mr. D. Panging, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. D. Tamuk, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. K. Singh, learned Standing Counsel, FCI, for respondent Nos. 2 to 6. 2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has put to challenge the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated 25.03.2025, issued by the Assistant Manager (Contract) for the General Manager (Region), Regional Office, Itanagar, for the work of “Road Transport Contract Ex-RH Harmuty/FSD Banderdewa to FSD Koloriang via weighbridge on regular basis for a period of 2 (two) years”, as well as the communication dated 05.04.2025, whereby the respondent authorities informed the petitioner that the rate quoted by the petitioner firm was very high and awarding the contract in its favour would cause huge financial loss to the Government exchequer. The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of appropriate directions to the respondent authorities to award the contract Page No.# 4/19 pursuant to the earlier NIT dated 08.01.2025 and to issue consequential work order. 3. The petitioner is a proprietorship firm under the name and style of M/s T T Enterprises, having its office at Papu Nallah, Naharlagun, District-Papum Pare, Arunachal Pradesh, and represented by its sole proprietor, Shri Tadum Taku. 4. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is that pursuant to the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated 08.01.2025, issued by the Assistant Manager (Contract) for the General Manager (Region), Regional Office, Food Corporation of India, Itanagar, for “Road Transport Contract Ex-RH Harmuty/FSD Banderdewa to FSD Koloriang via weighbridge on regular basis for a period of 2 (two) years for an estimated cost of Rs. 3,63,75,000/- (Rupees three crore sixty three lakhs seventy five thousand) only”, the petitioner firm, participated in the tender process along with four other bidders, namely, Agham Enterprises, M/s Itanagar Traders, M/s Atu-Apa Developers and Lar Trading Agency, by submitting its bid through the Government e-marketplace portal. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that though initially its technical bid was not accepted on the ground that the name of the petitioner firm was reflected as “M/s TT Enterprise” instead of “M/s TT Enterprises”, the petitioner thereafter submitted representation dated 14.02.2025 before the competent authorities contending that the discrepancy was merely clerical in nature and also submitted a self-declaration stating that both names pertain to the same firm. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was permitted to participate in the technical bid evaluation process and eventually the technical bid of the petitioner along with two other bidders was found qualified. Page No.# 5/19 6. Thereafter, upon opening of the financial bids, the petitioner firm was declared as the lowest responsive bidder (L1). However, despite completion of the tender process and despite the petitioner having emerged as the L1 bidder, the respondent authorities cancelled the aforesaid NIT dated 08.01.2025 without assigning any reasons. Subsequently, the Divisional Manager, FCI, DO, Banderdewa, Arunachal Pradesh, issued a fresh NIT dated 21.03.2025 on adhoc basis for the same work for a period of 3 (three) months for an estimated cost of Rs. 25,00,000/- (Rupees twenty five lakhs) only despite the fact that the said Tender has already been floated and the petitioner has been declared as the Lowest Bidder (L1). Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner instituted WP(C) No. 123/2025 challenging the adhoc NIT dated 21.03.2025, which was, however, subsequently came to be withdrawn. Thereafter, the respondent authorities issued a fresh NIT dated 25.03.2025 in respect of the same contract work. 7. It is the further case of the petitioner that during pendency of the earlier writ petition, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 18.03.2025 before the General Manager, FCI, Regional Office, Itanagar, alleging arbitrariness in cancellation of the earlier tender process and also alleging manipulation in the matter. The respondent authorities, by communication dated 05.04.2025, informed the petitioner that the rate quoted by the petitioner in the financial bid was very high and awarding the contract at such rate would have caused huge financial loss to the Government exchequer. It is the contention of the petitioner that the said stand of the respondent authorities is wholly misconceived inasmuch as the petitioner has quoted an amount of Rs. 3,20,96,520/- (Rupees three crore twenty lakhs ninety six thousand five hundred twenty) only, which is Page No.# 6/19 12.24% below the estimated tender value. Hence, this writ petition challenging the fresh NIT dated 25.03.2025 as well as the communication dated 05.04.2025 and also seeking consequential directions upon the respondent authorities to award the contract pursuant to the earlier NIT dated 08.01.2025 in favour of the petitioner. 8. Mr. D. Panging, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the impugned cancellation of the earlier tender process and issuance of the fresh NIT dated 25.03.2025 after completion of the tender process is arbitrary and unreasonable. The action of the respondent authorities lacks transparency and fairness and has been undertaken with the intention of favouring some other bidder. He submits that once the petitioner had been declared as the lowest responsive bidder (L1), the respondent authorities could not have arbitrarily cancelled the tender process without assigning any valid or cogent reasons. He submits that the initial rejection of the technical bid of the petitioner on account of discrepancy in the nomenclature of the firm itself demonstrates the arbitrary approach adopted by the respondent authorities, inasmuch as the discrepancy was merely clerical in nature. It is only after submission of representation and self-declaration by the petitioner, the respondent authorities permitted the petitioner to participate in the tender process and eventually declared qualified in the technical bid. 9. Mr. Panging, learned Senior Counsel, submits that the reason assigned by the respondent authorities in the communication dated 05.04.2025 that the rate quoted by the petitioner was “very high” and awarding the contract at such rate would result in financial loss to the Government exchequer is wholly Page No.# 7/19 misconceived and contrary to the records, inasmuch as the estimated tender value is Rs. 3,65,75,000/-, whereas the petitioner has quoted Rs. 3,20,96,520/-, which is 12.24% below the estimated cost put to tender. Therefore, he submits that the impugned action of the respondent authorities amounts to changing the rules of the game after completion of the tender process and the same is impermissible in law. He submits that the cancellation of the earlier NIT and issuance of the fresh NIT has been undertaken only to deny the contract to the petitioner despite the petitioner having emerged as the L1 bidder. 10. Learned Senior Counsel submits that though the Government may have the power to reject or cancel a tender process, such power cannot be exercised arbitrarily or unreasonably and must satisfy the requirements of fairness and transparency as mandated under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He submits that the action of the respondent authorities is violative of the principles of fairness, transparency and legitimate expectation. Therefore, Mr. Panging, learned Senior Counsel, submits that the impugned action of the respondent authorities in cancelling the earlier NIT dated 08.01.2025 and issuing the fresh NIT dated 25.03.2025 for the very same work, despite the petitioner having been declared as the lowest responsive bidder (L1), is arbitrary, unreasonable and lacks transparency and as such, the same is liable to be interfered with by this Court. 11. In support of his submissions, Mr. Panging, learned Senior Counsel, has placed reliance upon the following judgments:- Page No.# 8/19 (i) Food Corporation of India Vs. M/s Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries, reported in (1993) 1 SCC 71 (ii) Commissioner of Police, Bombay Vs. Gordhandas Bhanji, reported in 1951 SCC OnLine SC 70 12. On the other hand, B. K. Singh, learned Standing Counsel, FCI, for respondent Nos. 2 to 6, submits that the writ petition is wholly misconceived and not maintainable in law. He submits that the petitioner is estopped from challenging the cancellation of the NIT dated 08.01.2025 inasmuch as the petitioner has earlier instituted WP(C) No. 123/2025 challenging the very same action of the respondent authorities and after having failed to obtain interim relief therein and having subsequently participated in the adhoc tender process dated 21.03.2025 and emerged successful therein, the petitioner withdrew the said writ petition without obtaining any liberty to institute a fresh proceeding on the same cause of action. 13. He submits that the Food Corporation of India is entrusted with the statutory obligation of ensuring food security throughout the country under the provisions of the National Food Security Act, 2013 and the transportation and handling of foodgrains, particularly in the North-Eastern Region and other far- flung areas, constitute an essential public utility service. The uninterrupted movement and supply of foodgrains is of paramount importance and therefore, the respondent Corporation is duty bound to ensure that transportation contracts are awarded at reasonable and competitive rates in public interest. Page No.# 9/19 14. Mr. Singh, learned Standing Counsel, FCI, submits that the route in question, namely, Ex-RH Harmuty/FSD Banderdewa to FSD Koloriang, is a new route for the Corporation and the NIT dated 08.01.2025 has been floated for the first time in respect thereof. However, upon evaluation of the financial bids, the rate quoted by the petitioner, i.e. Rs. 4520/- per MT, has been found to be on the higher side after comparison with prevailing market rates and rates of similar contracts as required under Clause 4.4 of the FCI Contract Manual. He submits that the said clause specifically requires examination of the reasonability of tendered rates in a transparent manner by comparing the rates with prevailing market rates as well as rates of nearby FCI/CWC/SWC contracts. 15. Learned Standing Counsel has further submitted that in an earlier transaction audit report of the Zonal Office, exception has been taken by the higher authorities in respect of acceptance of a transport contract at a rate which is 19.5% higher than the previous contract without resorting to a second tender attempt for obtaining lower rates. The said audit objection necessitated a cautious approach in the present matter and accordingly, the competent authority took a conscious decision to cancel the earlier tender process and explore the possibility of obtaining more competitive rates. 16. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that the Model Tender Form itself, under Clause 11 of the “General Information to Tenderers”, stipulates that the Food Corporation of India reserves the right to reject any or all the tenders without assigning any reason and therefore, the petitioner cannot claim any indefeasible right merely because the petitioner has emerged as the L1 bidder. Page No.# 10/19 He submits that the subsequent events itself demonstrate the correctness of the decision taken by the respondent authorities inasmuch as pursuant to the adhoc NIT dated 21.03.2025, the petitioner himself participated and quoted a substantially lower rate of Rs. 3990/- per MT, which is Rs. 530/- lower than the rate quoted by the petitioner in the earlier NIT dated 08.01.2025, i.e. Rs. 4520/. He submits that because of the lower rate discovered in the adhoc tender process, the Corporation was able to save approximately Rs. 38 lakhs and therefore, the allegation of arbitrariness or mala fide is wholly unfounded. 17. Mr. Singh, learned Standing Counsel, FCI, submits that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands inasmuch as contradictory statements have been made in the writ petition regarding non-receipt of reply to the representation despite the petitioner himself having annexed the communication dated 05.04.2025 issued by the respondent authorities. He further submits that the allegations regarding favouritism, pick and choose policy and mala fide exercise of power are bald, vague and unsupported by any material particulars. He submits that the adhoc tender dated 21.03.2025 has been floated only as a temporary measure for a period of 3 (three) months in view of operational exigencies and the impending rainy season, whereas the fresh NIT dated 25.03.2025 was issued to obtain more competitive rates for the regular contract period. The decision making process has been undertaken strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Contract Manual, the Model Tender Form and prevailing guidelines and does not suffer from arbitrariness, mala fide or unreasonableness warranting interference of this Court. Therefore, he submits that no legal or fundamental right of the petitioner has been infringed and the petitioner having participated in the subsequent adhoc tender Page No.# 11/19 process and benefited therefrom cannot now turn around and challenge the cancellation of the earlier NIT dated 08.01.2025 and as such, the writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. 18. In support of his submissions, Mr. Singh, learned Standing Counsel, FCI, has placed reliance upon the following judgments:- (i) Air India Ltd. Vs. Cochin International Airport Ltd. & Ors., reported in (2000) 2 SCC 617 (ii) Jagdish Mandal Vs. State of Orissa & Ors., reported in (2007) 14 SCC 517 (iii) M/S N. G. Projects Limited Vs. M/S Vinod Kumar Jain & Ors., reported in (2022) 6 SCC 127 19. Mr. D. Panging, learned Senior Counsel, while rejoining his submissions, submits that the present writ petition is maintainable inasmuch as the earlier writ petition, being WP(C) No. 123/2025, was filed challenging the Ad-hoc NIT dated 21.03.2025, whereas the instant writ petition challenges the fresh regular NIT dated 25.03.2025. He submits that the cause of action in both the writ petitions is distinct and different and therefore, the plea of estoppel raised by the respondents is misconceived. 20. He further submits that though the petitioner was declared as the L1 bidder pursuant to the NIT dated 08.01.2025, the said tender process was Page No.# 12/19 cancelled on the purported ground that the quoted rate was on the higher side despite the admitted position that the petitioner’s bid was 12.24% below the estimated tender value. More so, the subsequent issuance of the fresh regular NIT dated 25.03.2025, merely 4 (four) days after the Adhoc NIT dated 21.03.2025, completely contradicts the stand of the respondents that issuance of a regular tender would have taken considerable time. 21. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the reliance placed by the respondents upon Clause 4.4 of the FCI Contract Manual is misconceived inasmuch as every tender has to be evaluated on its own merits and rates quoted in different tenders or routes cannot be mechanically compared. Therefore, the cancellation of the NIT dated 08.01.2025 and issuance of the fresh NIT dated 25.03.2025 for the same work is wholly arbitrary, discriminatory, mala fide and unsustainable in law. 22. Mr. Panging, learned Senior Counsel, further submitted that the stand of the respondents that the petitioner’s quoted rate was unreasonably high is inconsistent with the Corporation’s own past conduct. In this regard, learned Senior Counsel has referred to several earlier tenders wherein bids either above or below the estimated cost were accepted by the respondents. He submits that once the petitioner has been adjudged as the lowest responsive bidder and the quoted rate is within the sanctioned estimate, a legitimate expectation accrued in favour of the petitioner which could not have been defeated by cancellation of the tender process merely on the anticipation that a lower rate might be received in a future tender. Although the respondents may possess the authority to cancel a tender process, such power has to be exercised fairly, transparently Page No.# 13/19 and in conformity with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 23. Due consideration has been extended to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 24. The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondent authorities in cancelling the earlier NIT dated 08.01.2025, despite the petitioner having been declared as the lowest responsive bidder (L1), and thereafter issuing the fresh NIT dated 25.03.2025 for the very same contract work. The petitioner has also challenged the communication dated 05.04.2025, whereby the respondent authorities informed the petitioner that the rate quoted by the petitioner has been found to be on the higher side and awarding the contract at such rate would have caused financial loss to the Government exchequer. 25. From the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the materials available on record, it appears that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that pursuant to the NIT dated 08.01.2025, the petitioner was initially disqualified in the technical bid evaluation process on account of discrepancy in the nomenclature of the petitioner firm. However, after submission of representations and self-declaration by the petitioner, the respondent authorities permitted the petitioner to participate in the tender process and eventually declared the petitioner technically qualified. It also appears to be undisputed that upon opening of the financial bids, the petitioner emerged as the lowest responsive bidder (L1). Page No.# 14/19 26. The first issue which falls for consideration is with regard to the maintainability of the present writ petition in view of the earlier writ petition, being WP(C) No. 123/2025, instituted by the petitioner in connection with the adhoc NIT dated 21.03.2025. While the respondents contend that the petitioner is estopped from raising the present challenge after withdrawal of the earlier writ petition without liberty, the stand of the petitioner is that the earlier writ petition pertained to the adhoc NIT dated 21.03.2025, whereas the present writ petition challenges the subsequent regular NIT dated 25.03.2025 and therefore, the cause of action in both proceedings is distinct. 27. It is seen that the earlier writ petition, being WP(C) No. 123/2025, was instituted challenging the adhoc NIT dated 21.03.2025 floated for a limited period, whereas the present writ petition challenges the subsequent regular NIT dated 25.03.2025 as well as the consequential communication dated 05.04.2025. Therefore, the cause of action in the present proceeding cannot be said to be identical to the earlier writ petition and as such, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition is maintainable. 28. Now, it is to be considered as to whether the action of the respondent authorities in cancelling the earlier NIT dated 08.01.2025 and issuing the fresh NIT dated 25.03.2025 for the very same contract work is justified in law and whether the same suffers from arbitrariness, mala fide, unreasonableness or lack of transparency warranting interference by this Court. 29. The specific stand of the respondent authorities is that though the petitioner had emerged as the lowest responsive bidder (L1) pursuant to the Page No.# 15/19 earlier NIT dated 08.01.2025, the quoted rate of the petitioner, i.e. Rs. 4520/- per MT, has been found to be on the higher side upon examination of the reasonability of rates in terms of Clause 4.4 of the FCI Contract Manual and therefore, the competent authority had taken a conscious decision to cancel the earlier tender process and issue a fresh tender in public interest. The respondent authorities have also relied upon Clause 11 of the “General Information to Tenderers” contained in the Model Tender Form, whereby the Corporation reserves the right to reject any or all tenders without assigning any reason. 30. On the other hand, the petitioner has contended that the quoted amount of Rs. 3,20,96,520/- (Rupees three crore twenty lakhs ninety six thousand five hundred twenty) only was admittedly 12.24% below the estimated tender value of Rs. 3,63,75,000/- (Rupees three crore sixty three lakhs seventy five thousand) only and therefore, the subsequent stand of the respondent authorities that the quoted rate of the petitioner was “very high” is wholly arbitrary and contrary to the records. The petitioner has further contended that after completion of the tender process and after having declared the petitioner as the lowest responsive bidder (L1), the respondent authorities could not have arbitrarily cancelled the tender process merely on the possibility of obtaining lower rates in a future tender process. 31. Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the materials available on record, it appears that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that pursuant to the NIT dated 08.01.2025, the petitioner participated in the tender process and was eventually Page No.# 16/19 declared as the lowest responsive bidder (L1). It also appears to be undisputed that the quoted amount of the petitioner was admittedly below the estimated tender value. 32. It is well settled that though the State and its instrumentalities possess considerable freedom in contractual matters and award of tenders, such freedom is not absolute or unfettered. In Food Corporation of India Vs. M/s Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries, reported in (1993) 1 SCC 71, as relied by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in contractual sphere also, the State and its instrumentalities are required to act fairly, transparently and in a non-arbitrary manner and that every State action must satisfy the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It has further been held that due observance of fairness in decision making gives rise to a legitimate expectation in favour of persons participating in a State action. 33. At the same time, the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Air India Ltd. Vs. Cochin International Airport Ltd., reported in (2000) 2 SCC 617, Jagdish Mandal Vs. State of Orissa, reported in (2007) 14 SCC 517 and M/S N.G. Projects Ltd. Vs. M/S Vinod Kumar Jain, reported in (2022) 6 SCC 127, clearly indicate that though the scope of judicial review in tender matters is limited, the Court can certainly interfere where the decision making process is found to be arbitrary, irrational, mala fide or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 34. In the present case, as noted above, it is not in dispute that pursuant to Page No.# 17/19 the NIT dated 08.01.2025, the petitioner participated in the tender process and eventually emerged as the lowest responsive bidder (L1). It is also not in dispute that the estimated value of the tender was Rs. 3,63,75,000/- (Rupees three crore sixty three lakhs seventy five thousand) only whereas the bid quoted by the petitioner was Rs. 3,20,96,520/- (Rupees three crore twenty lakhs ninety six thousand five hundred twenty) only, which admittedly is 12.24% below the estimated tender value. 35. The justification sought to be advanced by the respondent authorities for cancellation of the earlier NIT dated 08.01.2025 is that the rate quoted by the petitioner has been found to be on the higher side and the Corporation intended to obtain more competitive rates in public interest. In this regard, reliance has been placed upon Clause 4.4 of the FCI Contract Manual pertaining to examination of reasonability of tendered rates as well as Clause 11 of the “General Information to Tenderers”, which reserves liberty upon the Corporation to reject any or all tenders without assigning any reason. 36. Clause 11 of the Model Tender Form undoubtedly reserves power upon the respondent Corporation to reject or cancel any tender process. However, such power cannot be construed to mean that the respondent authorities are at liberty to act arbitrarily or dehors the principles of fairness and transparency. The discretion vested upon a public authority necessarily has to be exercised reasonably, fairly and on the basis of discernible and justifiable reasons. 37. In the case in hand, this Court finds that though the respondents have subsequently attempted to justify the cancellation of the earlier tender process Page No.# 18/19 by contending that the quoted rate was “high”, no such reason was disclosed at the time of cancellation of the earlier NIT dated 08.01.2025. Even the communication dated 05.04.2025 merely states that the quoted rate was “very high” and awarding the contract at such rate would have caused financial loss to the Government exchequer. However, the respondents have failed to demonstrate as to how a bid admittedly 12.24% below the estimated tender value could be treated as exorbitant or unreasonable. 38. This Court also finds force in the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the stand of the respondent authorities appears to be self- contradictory. While the respondent authorities sought to justify the adhoc NIT dated 21.03.2025 on the ground that issuance of a regular tender would take considerable time, the fresh regular NIT dated 25.03.2025 came to be issued within merely 4 (four) days thereafter. The aforesaid sequence of events creates doubt with regard to the transparency and fairness of the decision making process adopted by the respondent authorities. 39. Having considered that the petitioner emerged as the lowest responsive bidder (L1) pursuant to the earlier NIT dated 08.01.2025 and considering that the quoted amount of the petitioner was admittedly below the estimated tender value, ordinarily the respondent authorities may have been justified in proceeding with the tender process. Though Clause 11 of the Model Tender Form reserves power upon the Corporation to reject any tender, such power necessarily has to be exercised reasonably, fairly and in a transparent manner consistent with the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Page No.# 19/19 40. The materials available on record do not disclose any cogent or justifiable reason for cancellation of the earlier tender process initiated pursuant to the NIT dated 08.01.2025. The subsequent explanation sought to be furnished by the respondent authorities appears to be an afterthought and lacks adequate factual foundation. Merely because the petitioner subsequently quoted a lower amount in the adhoc tender process, the same by itself cannot retrospectively validate the earlier decision of cancellation. 41. In view of what has been discussed herein above, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned action of the respondent authorities in cancelling the earlier NIT dated 08.01.2025 and issuing the fresh NIT dated 25.03.2025 for the same work suffers from arbitrariness and lack of transparency and therefore is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In the result, the impugned NIT dated 25.03.2025 as well as the communication dated 05.04.2025 are hereby set aside and quashed. The respondent authorities are directed to take consequential steps in respect of the earlier NIT dated 08.01.2025 in accordance with law and complete the process expeditiously, preferably within a period of 6 (six) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 42. The writ petition accordingly stands allowed and disposed of. No order as to cost(s). JUDGE Comparing Assistant