Rumi Kumari Phukan, J.

Heard Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Kardak Ete, learned Senior Additional Advocate General, Arunachal Pradesh, assisted by Mr. Subu Tapin, learned senior Government advocate, for all the respondents.

2. Both these writ petitions are being taken-up today for disposal since both are preferred by the same petitioner against identical issues.

3. The gist of the case, in WP(C) No.309(AP)/2016, in brief, is that, the petitioner-Firm is a partnership Firm of Kamrup District in the State of Assam and an Invitation for Bids (IFB) was published by the respondent-authority for package DDUGJY/PEC/EAST SIANG/01 for execution of electrical works of East Siang District under the centrally sponsored scheme called Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Gram Jyoti Yojana ('DI)UGJY') and the last date for submission was fixed on 30.5.2016 and as such, the petitioner submitted his e-tender for the said tender process. There were altogether 4 different packages including East Siang District, and the petitioner after preparing all documents relating to the tender, drew a demand draft of Rs. 25,000 in favour of Superintending Engineer (E), Pasighat Electrical Circle, payable at Pasighat. Thereafter, the petitioner uploaded the details of the Demand Draft in the web documents of the respondent-authority and the petitioner could access and download the bid documents as well as the related correspondence issued by the respondent-authority. After opening the tender documents, the Tender Opening Board found integrity pack of the petitioner and the demand draft drawn against cost of documents submitted by the petitioner, as valid. Surprisingly, the said Board found the Bank Guarantee submitted by the petitioner as Bid Security/EMD, as invalid. Upon enquiry, the petitioner came to know that the Bid Security/EMD ought to have been made in the form of Fixed Deposit/Demand Draft and, hence, the authority concerned considered it to be invalid. Against rejection of his tender, the petitioner submitted an appeal before the competent authority but the same is still pending consideration.. Hence, the writ petition, above-mentioned, has been preferred by the petitioner.

The gist of the case, in WP(C) No.311(AP)/2016, in brief, is that, the petitioner-Firm is a partnership Firm of Kamrup District in the State of Assam and an Invitation for Bids (IFB) was published by the respondent-authority for package DDUGJY/PEC/WS/01 for execution of electrical works of West Siang District under the centrally sponsored scheme called DDUGJY and the last date for submission was fixed on 2.6.2016 and as such, the petitioner submitted his e-tender for the said tender process. There were altogether 4 different packages including West Siang District, and the petitioner after preparing all documents relating to the tender, drew a demand draft of Rs. 25,000 in favour of Superintending Engineer (E), A.P. Electrical Circle-VI, Aalo, payable at Aalo. Thereafter, the petitioner uploaded the details of the Demand Draft in the web documents of the respondent-authority and the petitioner could access and download the bid documents as well as the related correspondence issued by the respondent-authority. After receipt of letter dated 23.5.2016 from the office of the Superintending Engineer (E), A.P. Electrical Circle-VI, West Siang District; the petitioner immediately drew a fixed deposit in favour of Executive Engineer (E), Aalo Electrical Division and submitted the same as Bid Security along with the tender before 2.6.2016. After opening the tender documents, the Tender Opening Board found integrity pack of the petitioner and EMD submitted by the petitioner, as valid. Surprisingly, the said Board found the Demand Draft submitted by the petitioner against the cost of tender documents as invalid since it was drawn in favour of Superintending Engineer. Against rejection of his tender, the petitioner submitted an appeal before the competent authori