The court affirmed that tender processes must adhere to clear criteria to avoid favoritism and arbitrary decisions, emphasizing the necessity of fairness and transparency in public contracts.

JUDGMENT :

MARLI VANKUNG, J.

1. Heard Mr. M. Pertin, learned senior counsel for the petitioner assisted by Mr. K. Dabi, learned counsel. Also heard Mr. R.H. Nabam, learned Addl. Advocate General and Mr. T.T. Tara, learned counsel for private respondent No. 7.

2. The instant writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 12.02.2025 which is an approval of the Bid Evaluation Board proceeding dated 10.01.2025, recommending the bid of the private respondent No. 7 for appointment of PDS Wholesale Nominee-Cum-Carriage Contractor in respect of Pakke Kessang District for the year 2025-2027, and for a direction for the respondent authorities to re-evaluate the tender process and make fresh recommendation in per the terms of the tender dated 10.12.2024.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner had responded to the tender notice vide PK/SUP-01/2021 dated 10.12.2024, for bids from interested and registered Cooperative Societies of Pakke Kessang District for appointment of PDS Wholesale Nominee-Cum-Carriage Contractor in respect of Pakke Kessang District for the year 2025 -2027 for carriage of PDS item through land route only. The said PDS carrier was to cover Seijosa, Dissing Passo, Pijirang and Pakke in Pakke Kessang District. The tender notice was issued as per the National Food Security Act (NFSA/13) rules/guidelines I(iii) for appointment of PDS land route carriage Contractor prescribed by the State Government vide their notification dated 16.01.2017. The petitioner along with the private respondents had participated in the tender process. The Tender Evaluation Board/Committee headed by ADC, Lemmi in its’ report dated 10.01.2025 recommended the bid of the private respondent no.7/ M/s Papu Hote Multipurpose Co-operative Society Ltd., Village Papu Hote. The writ petitioner had challenged the recommendation of the private respondent no.7 dated 10.01.2025 by filing a writ petition in WP(C) No. 95(AP)/2025, which became infructuous when on 12.02.2025, the Commissioner, Food and Civil Supplies, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, approved the report of the Tender Evaluation Board/Committee bid petition dated 10.01.2025, recommending the private respondent no.7. Thus, WP(C) No. 95(AP)/2025 on becoming infructuous, was closed by this court on 28.07.2025. Subsequently the petitioner filed the instant WP(C) No. 111(AP)/2025, challenging the approval order dated 12.02.2025, wherein the respondent authorities approved the Bid Evaluation Board proceeding held on 10.01.2025, which had recommended the respondent no.7/ M/s Papu Hote Multipurpose Co-operative Society Ltd., Village Papu Hote and had rejected the bid of the petitioner.

4. Mr. M. Pertin, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent authorities had erred in issuing the order dated 12.02.2025 by accepting the recommendation of the Bid Evaluation Board proceeding dated 10.01.2025 and in rejecting the bid of the petitioner, for such reasons which are not mentioned in the terms and conditions of the tender notice dated 10.12.2024 and erred in accepting the bid of respondent no.7, on the ground that their defects are less than others.

5. The learned senior c