Page No.# 1/5 GAHC020001412025 2025:GAU-NL:118 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : WP(C)/52/2025 M/S T. ALBERT ANGAMI AND CO. PROPRIETOR THINUOKHRIELIE YAOTSU, L KHEL KOHIMA VILLAGE, KOHIMA, NAGALAND VERSUS THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF NAGALAND, KOHIMA 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF NAGALAND DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION KOHIMA NAGALAND 3:THE DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION GOVERNMENT OF NAGALAND KOHIMA NAGALAND AND CHAIRMAN TECHNICAL EVALUATION COMMITTEE DIRECTORATE OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION KOHIMA Page No.# 2/5 NAGALAND FOR PM-DEVINE PROJECT TITLE 'EDUCATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE/ FACILITY DEVELOPMENT IN POLYTECHNICS' 4:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD (H) DIRECTORATE OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION KOHIMA NAGALAND 5:M/S DZIESE ZUMU GOVT. REGD CLASS 1 CONTRACTOR LOWER BAYAVU HILL COLONY KOHIMA NAGALAN Advocate for the Petitioner : V. THEYO, NULHUVOLU,HOLUTO SHEQI Advocate for the Respondent : GOVT ADV NL, BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH O R D E R 03.04.2025 Heard Ms. Nulhuvolu, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. C.T. Jamir, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. I. Imchen, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4. Mr. L.T. Sangtam, learned Additional AG appears on behalf of respondent no. 1. 2. The instant writ petition is taken up for disposal at the Motion stage. Page No.# 3/5 3. The Director of Technical Education, Nagaland, who is the respondent no. 3 had issued notice inviting online bid from eligible bidders registered under Nagaland PWD Class-1/CPWD/MES meeting the eligibility criteria for the Project namely, ‘Construction of Girls Hostel at Government Polytechnic Seithekama-C’ dated 28.08.2024. In terms with the said notice inviting online bid, the last date for submission of the bid was on 12.09.2024 and the technical bid was also to be opened on 12.09.2024. In terms with the invitation for the bids (IFB) it is relevant to take note of that the period of completion has been mentioned as 12 months. It is seen from a perusal of the writ petition that various bidders, including the petitioner and the respondent no. 5, submitted the bid. The Technical Evaluation of the bids was carried out on 16.09.2024, and the petitioner, the respondent no. 5, along with another were adjudged as technically qualified. Subsequent thereto, on 17.09.2024, the Financial Evaluation was carried out. In terms with the said Financial Evaluation, it was found that the petitioner herein had quoted 10.13% below the tender value and the respondent no. 5 had quoted 0.09% below the tender value. 4. In the said Financial Evaluation Report which was made on 17.09.2024, the Tender Committee proposed that the respondent no. 5 be awarded the contract. The said decision was taken on the basis of a Meeting of the Technical Committee held on 13.09.2024, whereby it was decided much prior to the opening of the Technical Bids as well as the Financial Bids that the award of the contract shall be awarded to the firm /company which quotes closest to the estimated cost of the Project. The resolution so taken in the Minutes of the Technical Evaluation Committee Meeting on 13.09.2024 being relevant is reproduced herein Page No.# 4/5 under: “Er. VIPULHOU LHOUNGU, Chairman of the Group/Committee welcomed all the members to the meeting. The expert committee deliberated at length, on the nature and scope of the work. The committee acknowledges the fact that the current rate applicable all over the state is @9.19% above the NPWD SOR 2021, whereas, the estimated cost of the project had been prepared @ 6.13% above NPWD SOR 2021, which was applicable for 2023 in the state of Nagaland. Further, it was informed by the engineering wing that there had been an error at the time of preparation of DPR by the consultants which resulted in showing negative amount in the estimate. Keeping all the above points in view, the expert committee unanimously decided that, in the interest of the project and in order to ensure value for money and quality, and also limiting construction risk, the award of the contract shall be awarded to the firm/company which quotes closest to the estimated cost of the project.” 5. During the course of the hearing, Mr. C.T. Jamir, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 have placed the said Minutes which is kept on record and marked with the Letter-‘X’. 6. On the basis of the decision taken in the Financial Evaluation Report dated 17.09.2024 the Work Order was issued to the respondent no. 5 on 18.09.2024. This Court further takes note of that after more than 6 months from the issuance of the work order, the instant writ petition was filed, i.e., on 27.03.2025. This Court further takes note of the submission of Mr. C.T. Jamir, the learned senior counsel, who submitted that in respect to the work in question which was awarded to the respondent no. 5, almost 35% physical progress of the work has been completed as on 01.04.2025. The learned senior counsel further submitted that if the present litigation is allowed to proceed, the work would stop, which would hamper the students for whose benefit the hostel is being constructed. Page No.# 5/5 7. This Court has also heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner on the aspect pertaining to the delay and laches as the said aspect has relevance, more particularly in respect to the contract, which is to be completed within a period of 12 months. It was submitted that the learned counsel for the petitioner had sought information under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The said submission does not appeal to this Court taking into account that the tender in question was e-tender and all the information were duly available in the e-portal. 8. This Court have also taken the note being submitted by the Director/respondent no. 2, along with the progress report and certain photographs of the construction being carried out, which has been collectively kept on record and marked with the Letter- ‘Y’. 9. Taking into account the delay and laches on the part of the petitioner to approach this Court which in the opinion of this court appears to be fatal and more so when substantial progress being made in the construction of the Girls Hostel in question, it is the opinion of this Court that it would not be proper to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in the present proceedings. Consequently, this Court dismisses the instant writ petition. JUDGE Comparing Assistant