Page No.# 1/6 GAHC040002082024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : PIL/4/2024 Mimar Dirchi and Anr Son of Shri Domi Dirchi, resident of Lipin village, PO and PS Likabali, Lower Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh presently working as General Secretary, All Arunachal Pradesh Contractor Welfare Association, Lower Siang District Unit and Social Activist. 2: Binpi Doke Age: Occupation : Son of Shri Pebbin Doke resident of Lipin village PO and PS Likabali Lower Siang District Arunachal Pradesh presently working as RTI in Charge of All Arunachal Pradesh Contractor Welfare Association Lower Siang District Unit and Social Activist VERSUS The State of AP and 5 Ors through the Chief Secretary, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Civil Secretariat, Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh 791111 2:The Principal Secretary/ Commissioner Age: 0 Occupation : PWD Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Civil Secretariat Arunachal Pradesh 791111 3:The Chief Engineer Age: 0 Occupation : PWD Eastern Zone- B Pasighat East Siang District Page No.# 2/6 Arunachal Pradesh 791102 4:The Superintedning Engineer Age: 0 Occupation : PWD Division at Basar PO and PS Basar Leparada District Arunachal Pradesh 791101 5:The Executive Engineer Age: 0 Occupation : PWD Gensi Division Lower Siang District Arunachal Pradesh 791125 6:M/s I T Enterprise Age: 0 Occupation : represented by proprietor Smti Nonngam Wangsu Kangku Village PO and PS Likabali Lower Siang District Arunachal Pradesh 78711 Advocate for the Petitioner : Chorpok Modi, P Tatam,N Rama,N Kuma,T Rahul Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER Date : 18.11.2025 (S.P. Khaund, J) Heard learned counsel Mr. N. Rama for the petitioners No. 1 Shri Mimar Dirchi and 2. Shri Binpi Doke and learned Additional Advocate General Mr. R.H. Nabam for the respondent State. Page No.# 3/6 2. The petitioners are public-spirited persons and they have filed this application as they are aggrieved by the quality of work executed by the respondent No. 6, M/S I.T. Enterprise, represented by proprietor Smti. Nonngam Wangsu, Village Kangku, P.S. Likhabali, Lower Siang, Arunachal Pradesh. 3. It is submitted that an NIT was floated by the respondent Department vide No. GD/S-08/2022-2023/02 dated 12.03.2023. Press Notice dated 13.03.2023 clearly reveals that bid was solicited from the registered contractors of APPWD in appropriate class domiciled within the territorial jurisdiction of 28th Likabali Assembly Constituency, but unfortunately, the respondent No. 6 is not registered under the APPWD but the respondent No. 6 is a contractor registered under APWD in the State of Assam. Illegally, the NIT was accepted by the respondents No. 4 and 5 despite the fact that the respondent No. 6 is a contractor in Class-II category and not under Class-I category as was the requirement of the subject tender. 4. An agreement was executed between the PWD and respondent No. 27.03.2023. Annexure-VI of the petition is the agreement. 5. It is averred that before the execution of work, an amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore) out of the estimate of Rs.1,98,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore and Ninety Eight Lacs) was already released. An RTI application was thus filed by the petitioners being public-spirited social workers and citizens of the locality and an RTI reply, Annexure-VIII of the petition, clearly reveals that Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore) has already been paid during March, 2023, which substantiates that before the work was executed, the amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore) has already been paid. Page No.# 4/6 6. Aggrieved by the conduct of the respondents, the petitioners have prayed to declare - the NIT No. GD/S-08/2022-2023/02 dated 12.03.2023 along with the Press Notice dated 13.03.2023 to be illegal; Appoint an independent and impartial commission to investigate/inquire upon misappropriation of cost of the said project and; Direct the respondent authorities to refund the illegal bill payment to the private respondent No. 6 deposited in the account of Government for re-tender and to pass any other order as this Court deems fit and proper. 7. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General Mr. R.H. Nabam laid stress in his argument and has refuted the petitioners’ contention stating that this petition is not maintainable. This is not a matter of construction but a matter of supply and the Press Notice dated 13.03.2023 clearly reveals that respondent No. 6 was to provide 2 superstructure components in already constructed abutments at Diji Nallah in Gensi-Siberite Road. 8. It is further contended that the date and timing of opening the tenders was fixed on 20.03.2023 and the work has already been completed on 27.03.2023. Now, after completion of work, how can the petitioners pray to re- execute the entire process. 9. It is further contended that the petitioner has not specifically stated in what manner the work executed was malafide. There is no specific allegation regarding substantiating materials or anomalies in payment of the bill. In an omnibus manner, the allegation has been brought forward by the petitioners Page No.# 5/6 and now, the petitioners have prayed to undo or detangle the entire process. 10. We have considered the submissions at the bar with circumspection. At first blush, it is apt to mention that the petitioners have filed this PIL as public- spirited social workers and they have not participated in the bidding process. It is not disputed that the work has already been completed on 27.03.2023 and after almost a year, i.e. on 05.02.2024, this petition has been filed. 11. It is true that the petitioners have failed to demonstrate any specific allegation regarding misuse of funds by the respondent No. 6 or if the funds have been misused by the respondent No. 6 in collusion with the other respondents. No allegations either of the manufacturing process, defect of volume or size of the structure to be supplied has been brought forward in the petition. 12. We have also considered the submissions that the petition has not been filed in consonance with Rule 10 of the Gauhati High Court Public Interest Litigation Rules, 2011. 13. It is submitted that this is not a public interest litigation but a litigation which has been initiated on the backdrop of interest, private to the petitioners. 14. We have also considered the submissions of the learned Additional Advocate General that without commission or verification from a Technical Commissioner, the quality of work executed by the respondent No. 6 could not be ascertained. 15. Learned Additional Advocate General has strongly denied that funds were released without the execution of work. There is no specific allegation of Page No.# 6/6 siphoning off funds or supply of materials which were of poor quality. 16. Except the order of NIT and the Press Notice along with the RTI report, no substantiating documents or specific allegations have been projected by the petitioners. 17. Thereby, in view of the foregoing discussions, this Court is constrained to dismiss the petition as the petition is bereft of merits. 18. Petition is hereby dismissed. 19. No order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant