Page No.# 1/7 GAHC040002302024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : PIL/5/2024 Empalo Mena Son of late Balom aMena, resident of Singa Village, PO Tuting, PS Tuting, Upper Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS The State of AP and 19 Ors represented by the Chief Secretary, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar 2:The Secretary Age: 0 Occupation : PWD Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar 3:The Secretary Age: 0 Occupation : RWD Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar 4:The Secretary Age: 0 Occupation : PH and Engineering Department Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar 5:The Superintending Engineer Age: 0 Occupation : Boleng Civil Circle Yingking Division Page No.# 2/7 PWD Yingkiong Upper Siang District Arunachal Pradesh 6:The Executive Engineer Age: 0 Occupation : Yingkiong Division PWD Yingkiong Upper Siang District Arunachal Pradesh 7:The Executive Engineer Age: 0 Occupation : Boleng Civil Circle PWD Yingkiong Upper Siang District Arunachal Pradesh 8:The Executive Engineer Age: 0 Occupation : Rural Works Department Public Works Department Yingkiong Upper Siang District Arunachal Pradesh 9:The Executive Engineer Age: 0 Occupation : PHEWS Division Yingkiong Upper Siang District Arunachal Pradesh. 10:The Superintendent of Police Age: 0 Occupation : Special Investigation Cell (VIG) Itanagar Arunachal Pradesh 11:Gatling Lipir Age: 0 Page No.# 3/7 Occupation : Executive Engineer Rural Works Department Yingkiong Division Yingkiong Upper Siang Arunachal Pradesh 12:R N Singh Age: 0 Occupation : Superintending Engineer Rupa Circle Bomdila West Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh 13:P D Chukla Age: 0 Occupation : EE (PHE) Namsai Head Quarter District Namsai Arunachal Pradesh 14:Rajen Tayin Age: 0 Occupation : EE PHED (PHED) Yingkiong Division Yingkiong Upper Siang District Arunachal Pradesh 15:M/s Zambuling Enterprise Age: 0 Occupation : proprietor shri Gelek Rapsel registered contractor Class V PWD Yingkiong Division Yingkiong Upper Siang District Arunachal Pradesh 16:Jurmey Tenzin Age: 0 Occupation : registered Contractor Class V PWD Yingkiong Division Yingkiong Upper Siang District Arunachal Pradesh 17:M/s O L Constructions Page No.# 4/7 Age: 0 Occupation : proprietor Ms Oyam Lipir D/o Gatling Lipir registered Contractor Class V a Rural Works Department Yingkiong Division Yingkiong Upper Siang District Arunachal Pradesh 18:M/s T G Enterprises Age: 0 Occupation : proprietor Tsedup Gombo Khamba registered contractor Class V PWD Yingkiong Division Yingkiong Upper Siang District Arunachal Pradesh 19:Norbu Tsering Age: 0 Occupation : registered contractor Class V PWD Yingkiong Division Yingkiong Upper Siang District Arunachal Pradesh 20:M/s Dargyelling Enterprises Age: 0 Occupation : proprietor Shri Dorjee Cholda registered contractor Class V PHED Yingkiong Division Yingkiong Upper Siang District Arunachal Prades Advocate for the Petitioner : Debajit Kumar Das, Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), Idak Bam,Marge Doji,Arun Kumar Mishra,R Singh,Dusu Rillung,Noni Nobeng,Orin Modi,Jartum Gadi,Punyo Harming,Jumge Karbak,Tamo Taggu,K Loya,SC (SIC),Ojing Pada Page No.# 5/7 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER Date : 12.11.2025 (K.R. Surana, J) None appears for the petitioner on call. However Mr. N. Ratan, learned Additional Advocate General, Ms. D. Pillung, learned counsel representing respondent no. 12, Mr. J. Karbak, learned counsel representing respondent no. 13, Mr. O. Modi, learned counsel for respondent no. 14 and Mr. O. Pada, learned standing counsel for SIC are present. 2. The learned Advocate General for the State submits that the petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition which was numbered as WP(C) 226/2023 which was withdrawn with liberty to approach the appropriate forum. Thereafter, the present PIL has been presented before this Court. 3. By virtue of this PIL, the petitioner, namely, Sri Empalo Mena, is seeking a direction upon the respondent authorities for an independent investigation and an enquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in the matter relating to siphoning of funds to the tune of Rs. 3.00 Crore, thereby causing loss to the exchequer in the Department of Public Works Department, Rural Works Department and Public Health Engineering Department. It is further alleged that no enquiry was whatsoever was conducted against the erring Page No.# 6/7 officials despite existence of credible evidence against the concerned officials. 4. The learned Additional Advocate General by referring to the statements made in paragraph no. 7 of this PIL has submitted that in respect of all the allegations contained in sub-paragraph (i) to (vii), the Superintending Engineer, Boleng Civil Circle, Yingkiong Division, PWD (respondent no. 5) and Executive Engineer, Yingkiong Division, PWD (respondent no.6) in their a joint affidavit-in-opposition, have responded to each and every allegations, broadly denying the allegations of the that the work under reference were issued to the contractors named by the petitioner. Moreover, he has submitted that as per the affidavit, some alleged works which were shown to be given to certain contractors were not even issued to anyone. The description of each and every work which were allegedly siphoned off are carefully contained in Table A, Table B and Table C of the said affidavit. 5. Mr. O. Pada, learned standing counsel for the SIC (vigilance), Arunachal Pradesh has referred to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by respondent no. 10 has submitted that upon receipt of information by the petitioner, following cases were registered, being {SIC (Vig) PS Discreet Enquiry No. 07/2023}, dated 14.08.2023, {SIC (Vig) PS Discreet Enquiry No. 08/2023}, dated 14.08.2023. Thereafter, regular enquiry cases were registered vide Memo No. SIC/VIG/DE-08/2023/1393, dated 14.08.2023 and vide Memo No. SIC/VIG/DE-08/2023/1392, dated 14.08.2023. 6. Be that as it may, it appears from the said affidavit, that enquiry has not been concluded and thus, neither a closure report nor a final report has been submitted therein. Under such circumstances as the enquiry is still continuing and as major part of the allegations has been denied by the respondent nos. 5 and 6, taking note of the fact that the petitioner is absent Page No.# 7/7 consecutively for 4 (four) dates, this PIL stands dismissed for non-prosecution. 7. However, this dismissal of the PIL shall not preclude the right of the petitioner to take appropriate steps as he may be so advised, depending upon the nature of final form filed by the SIC (Vigilance). JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant