Rumi Kumari Phukan, J.

Heard Mr. P.K. Tiwari, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. Chorpok Modi, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Also heard Mr. R.H. Nabam, learned Additional Advocate General, Arunachal Pradesh, assisted by Ms. Pubi Pangu, learned Government Advocate, for all the State Respondents.

2. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the subsequent NIT issued by the Executive Engineer, PWD Seppa Division dated 24.07.2015. The relevant facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as follows:

The petitioners herein are registered Class-I Contractors of Arunachal Pradesh and they are eligible to participate in any Govt, tender as per the financial limit of their firm. The Executive Engineer, PWD Seppa Division floated a NIT dated 16.01.2015 published in local daily, for construction of road from NH-229 to Gumte Village under SPA. The petitioners along with 12(twelve) other contractors participated in the said tender process and their technical bids were opened on the scheduled date and after evaluation by the Office of the Chief Engineer, PWD, petitioners have been found technically qualified along with 8(eight) others. The Financial bids of the successful firms were opened on 07.05.2015 by the Executive Engineer, PWD Seppa. Ten firms along with the petitioners firms were declared financially qualified. The Executive Engineer, PWD Seppa after preparing the comparative statement forwarded the same to the Superintending Engineer and Chief Engineer, PWD, Itanagar for finalisation and award of work to the most eligible firm amongst the financially qualified bidders. However, even after many months no any further intimation was received from the Chief Engineer's office.

3. Surprisingly, the respondent authorities again published NIT in the local daily dated 24.07.2015 for the same work. In the said re-tender, the eligibility criteria to participate in the bid will be as per the Arunachal Pradesh Dist. Based Entrepreneurs and Professional (Intensive, Development and Promotional) Rules, 2015. According to the Act, registered contractors domiciled within the territorial jurisdiction of Assembly Constituency only are eligible. The said Act was published in gazette notification dated 13.04.2015 in order to give preference to local entrepreneurs. The tender in question was floated on 16.01.2015, before the notification of the Act and will not be governed by the new Rule. Further, the petitioners were not given notice before retendering of the same work. The authorities cannot re-tender without releasing the earnest money deposited by the petitioners in the earlier tender. Hence, the respondent authorities have committed patent illegality in floating fresh tender, during the subsistence of earlier tender process and prayed for setting aside the impugned fresh Notice Inviting Bid dated 24.07.2015 as illegal and arbitrary and for a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the case of the qualified bidders, including that of the petitioners and award the contract work to the most suitable firm, qualified in the technical and as well as in the price bids as per NIT dated 16.01.2015.

4. The Respondent No. 3 i.e. the Superintending Engineer, PWD Sagalee Circle, Naharlagun filed affidavit-in-opposition refuting the claim of the respondents and submitted that there was absolutely no arbitrariness in ordering the cancellation of tender and going in for retendering. There were serious lapses in the process of opening and evaluation of tender. The decision for re-tender was taken on the following grounds:

(i) Thirteen bidders were found to be technically qualified but Circle/Division office forwarded financial bids of only ten bidders to the office of the Chief Engineer, Western Zone, PWD, AP, Itanagar, the tender accepting authority, without citing any valid reasons for dropping the bids of three bidders.

(ii) EMD of one of t