As per case facts, Petitioner challenged the technical evaluation and declaration of Respondent No.6 as L-1 for a road construction project, alleging non-disclosure of debarment, criminal cases, and incomplete projects ... by Respondent No.6. Petitioner sent emails about the irregularities, but the Letter of Acceptance (LoA) was still issued to Respondent No.6 in a hurry. The question arose whether the technical evaluation and the subsequent issuance of the Letter of Acceptance to Respondent No.6 should be stayed, given the alleged non-compliance with tender conditions and non-disclosure of crucial information by Respondent No.6. Finally, the Court found a prima facie case for interim relief, noting that the RFP laid down specific requisites which seemed to have been overlooked. Despite the Respondent No.6's previous debarment orders being deemed withdrawn, no disclosure was made regarding ongoing contracts and work progress. The Court observed the hurried issuance of the LoA shortly after the Petitioner's emails and ruled that the LoA does not constitute a concluded contract. Therefore, the impugned technical evaluation summary and subsequent steps related to the LoA were stayed until further orders.