JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. M. Kato, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. T. Son, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 6 as well as Mr. D. Soki, learned Addl. senior Government advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4. None appears on call for the respondent No. 5.

2. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioner No. 1, namely, M/s. Peno Enterprises is a class I (B&R) registered contractor under civil category having its office at Bamang Cottage, Panchayat Colony, Naharlagun, PO and PS Naharlagun, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. The petitioner No. 2, namely, Sri Charu Kasa has projected that he is the authorized representative of the petitioner No. 1. The petitioner No. 1 participated in a tender process pursuant to an E-Procurement Press notice bearing No. RWD/DPIU-II/NIT/2016-17, dated 31.1.2017, which was in respect of 7 numbers of package for road works in the district of Kra-Daadi under the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna. The Subject matter of the present writ petition is a tender for construction work related to a road from Chambang to Kurayer Road to Sengching (Stage I) bearing package No. AR/14/01/052. It is projected that altogether 5 Firms/Contractors including the petitioner No. 1 firm participated in the tender process and in the evaluation of the technical bids, the bid of the petitioner No. 1 firm was rejected by the concerned State-respondents and the tenders of the private respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were found to be responsive. On the various grounds as stated in the writ petition, the petitioners have projected that gross illegality was committed by the State-respondents in rejecting the tender submitted by the petitioner No. 1 firm and, therefore, this writ petition was filed for quashing the minutes of the technical bids evaluation dated 16.2.2017 and all the consequential actions pursuant thereto, further requiring the respondent No. 4, namely, the Executive Engineer Rural Works Circle, Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh to issue fresh Notices Inviting Tender in respect of the said work in reference and/or for a direction to re-evaluate the technical bids of the petitioners. The respondent No. 3 and the respondent No. 6 have filed their respective affidavit-in-opposition in order to counter the allegations made in the writ petition.

3. In course of hearing today, the leaned Addl. senior Government advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and the learned counsel for the respondent No. 6 have raised a preliminary issue regarding maintainability of the present writ petition on the ground that the petitioner No. 2 was not the authorized representative of the petitioner No. 1 and in this writ petition no documents has been annexed to show that the petitioner No. 2 was either a constituted attorney or an authorized person on behalf of petitioner No. 1 of its sole proprietor to file this writ petition in his own name by arraying himself as the petitioner No. 2 in this writ petition. In support of their arguments, the leaned Add. Senior Government advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and the learned counsel for the respondent No. 6 have referred to the judgment of this court in the case of Lokam Brothers and Ors. v. State of Arunachal Pradesh and Ors., 2015 (5) GLR 147 as well as judgment dated 1.5.2017 passed by this court in WP(C) No. 95(AP)/17 in the case of M/s. Peno Enterprises and Another v. State of Arunachal Pradesh and 4 Ors. It is submitted that as per the ratio of the case of Lokam Brothers (supra), this court has held that the writ petition which was filed by the petitioner therein on behalf of Lokam Brothers (supra) was absolutely without authority and while arriving at the said finding, this court has held as follows in paragraphs 5 to 9:

“5. There is no manner of doubt that in the writ petition, no document was enclosed showing the petitioner's authority to act and/or to institute legal proceedings on behalf if M/s. Lokam Brothers. The only document annexed thereto,