KALYAN RAI SURANA, J.

1. Heard Mr. B. Kausik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

2. Also heard Mr. D. Soki, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondents No. 1 to 4 as well as Mr. P.K. Tiwari, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. K. Saxena, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent No.5.

3. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the rejection of his bid in connection with NIT No. EEA/RWD(SIDF)/NIT-23/2015-16/7317 issued by the office of the Superintendent Engineer, Pasighat, East Siang District for "Construction of Multi-purpose Wooden Badminton Courts at Darak and Kamba and Audience Gallery at General Ground Yomcha and Kamba including Infrastructural Development under 27 Liromba Constituency" on the ground that the technical bid of the petitioner was found not responsive.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in order to participate in the above mentioned tender, the petitioner had submitted his bid documents which was complete in all respect. As per terms and condition of the tender, the bids of the said tender was opened on 22.03.2017 at around 1400 hrs at the office of the Superintending Engineer, RWD, (Circle Pasighat) Pasighat. It is submitted that the tender documents were submitted two sets, one in original as well as in one photo copy. The bid documents were enclosed along with the checklist of the documents submitted along with the bid.

5. It is projected that on 22.03.2017, when the bids were opened for technical evaluation, the result of such evaluation was neither informed to the petitioner and nor displayed in the Notice Board of the Superintending Engineer, Pasighat, where tender was opened. Therefore, he was required to wait and after awaiting for some time, the petitioner visited the office of the Superintendent Engineer, Pasighat for participating in the financial bid in respect of a separate Arunachal Pradesh PMGYS tender and he was informed by Superintendent Engineer, Pasighat that the financial bids in respect of the tender in which he had participated on 22.03.2017, would be open on 29.03.2017 at 2.00PM. Accordingly, on 29.03.2017, the petitioner went to participate in the financial bid. However, he was surprised to be informed by the Executive Engineer, Aalo Division verbally that his technical bid was rejected on 22.03.2017 due to non-submission of the affidavit of his existing commitments. The petitioner projects that he was never informed about rejection of his bid by holding his bid to be technically not responsive. However, when he asked the Executive Engineer, the petitioner was informed that the notice about the rejection of his bid in course of technical evaluation was notified in his office at Aalo Division. It is projected that when the bid were opened in the office of the Superintending Engineer at Pasighat, the notice of rejection of his tender at office of the Executive Engineer at Aalo was illegal and it was designed to withhold information to the petitioner.

6. At his request, the petitioner was furnished with the copy of the order rejecting his bid on the ground of non submission of affidavit only on 29.03.2017. The said rejection order showed that the signature of none of the officials present had a date and, as such, it is projected that the said rejection order manipulated to oust the petitioner.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though not admitted by him but assuming that the affidavit was not present, the requirement of such affidavit arose out of the Special Terms and Condition and Clause 11 of Instructions to Bidders ('ITB' for short) appended thereto, therefore, the said affidavit was not at all relevant for deciding the issue of non-responsiveness of his tender. Moreover, by referring to Clause No.26 of the ITB, it is submitted that the examination of bids and determination of responsiveness was provided in clause 26.1, according to wh