Page No.# 1/3 GAHC040004912025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/140/2025 Gollo Talung Son of Shri Gollo Talik, Village Paga, PO Mengio, PS Sagalee, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP and 4 Ors through the Principal Secretary, Rural Works Department, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, civil Secretariat, Itanagar. 2:The Chief Engineer Age: 0 Occupation : Rural Works Department Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar 791111 3:The Superintending Engineer Age: 0 Occupation : Rural Works Department Itanagar Arunachal Pradesh 791111 4:The Executive Engineer Age: 0 Occupation : Rural Works Department Sagalee Division Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 5:M/s Solo Enterprises Page No.# 2/3 Age: 0 Occupation : Village Karoi PO and PS Sagalee Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : Mato Hali, B Tagia,T Gameh,D Yoka,Jaya Doji Advocate for the Respondent : Gimi Tarak, SC (RWD) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER Date : 12.02.2026 Heard Shri C. Peter, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri T. Tarak, learned Standing Counsel, RWD. 2. The instant writ petition was filed with the following relief: “a) Issue a writ of Certiorari quashing the Tender Notice No. EER/RWD/SAG/ET/2023-2024 dated 12.03.2025. b) Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to initiate a fresh tender process in full compliance with Clause 4.13(ii) of the CPWD Works Manual 2022 and Rules 160 & 173 of the GFR 2017. c) Pass an ad-interim order staying all further steps and awards pursuant to the impugned tender pending final disposal of this petition. d) Pass any other or further orders deemed just and proper in the interest of justice.” Page No.# 3/3 3. As per the facts projected, the tender notice was published with an unreasonably short bid window of only 3 (three) days. Such recourse have been alleged to be in violation of Clause 4.13(ii) of the CPWD Works Manual 2022, which mandates a minimum of 14 (fourteen) days. Various other grounds have been urged in the writ petition. 4. This Court has, however, noticed that though this writ petition was instituted on 28.03.2025, notice was issued only on 05.05.2025 and no interim order has been passed. 5. Shri G. Tarak, learned Counsel for the department, has informed that the work in question has been completed as the construction is over. 6. In view of the aforesaid development, the adjudication of the present writ petition will be mere academic and no offensive relief would be available. 7. In view thereof, this writ petition is closed. This Court, however, makes it clear that no observation on merits has been made and any aggrieved party would be at liberty to urge the grounds in an appropriate case in future. JUDGE Comparing Assistant