Page No.# 1/6 GAHC040016582025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/472/2025 M/s C R Enterprise having its registered office at Koloriang Market, PO and PS Koloriang, Kurung Kumey District, Arunachal Pradesh represented by Attorney Shri Ha Takia, Son of Ha Tarang, resident of Nyokuriang, Parsi Parlo, PO and PS Koloriang, Kurung Kumey District, Arunachal Pradesh. 791118 VERSUS The State of AP and 8 Ors represented by the Secretary, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Department of Rural Development, Itanagar. 2:The Director Age: 0 Occupation : Rural Development Department Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 3:The Joint Director Age: 0 Occupation : Rural Development Department Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 4:The Project Director Age: 0 Occupation : Rural Development Department Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 5:The Tender Evaluation Committee Age: 0 Page No.# 2/6 Occupation : represented by its Chairman CD Block Koloriang Kurung Kumey District Arunachal Pradesh. 6:Nangram Pingkap Age: 0 Occupation : Project Director Rural Development Department cum Chairman Tender Evaluation Committee CD Block Koloriang Kurung Kumey District Arunachal Pradesh. 7:M/s Harang Enterprise Age: 0 Occupation : having its office address at Near Industry Colony Koloriang Kurung Kumey District Arunachal Pradesh represented by proprietor Smti Rido Rina Wife of Shri nangram Mire resident of Village Harang Koloriang Kurung Kumey District Arunachal Pradesh. 8:M/s DH Enterprise Age: 0 Occupation : having its office at Sangrek Puttung Colony Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh represented by its proprietor Shri Dongche Hapung resident of 6 Kilo Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 9:M/s Pacho Enterprises Age: 0 Occupation : having its office at Langbang Village Page No.# 3/6 PO Parsi Parlo PS Koloriang Kurung Kumey District Arunachal Pradesh represented by its proprietor Shri Bamang Pacho Son of Bamang Tabang resident of E Sector Forest Park Near Power House Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : Tapi Omo, Pankaj Borah,Bedanta Kaushik Advocate for the Respondent : , Binter Picha,SC (RD) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER 29.01.2026 Heard Mr. Bedanta Kausik, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Binter Picha, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-Rural Development Department. 2. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner challenging the technical evaluation report arising out of the NIT dated 20.06.2025 issued by the Department of Rural Development for “Supply and Procurement of Materials under MGNREGA for the Financial Year 2025–26” for CD Block Parsi Parlo, Kurung Kumey District. 3. Pursuant to the said NIT, for supply of Material under MGNREGA’2025-26, dated 20.06.2025 for Parsi Parlo circle, the petitioner, respondent Nos.7, 8 and 9 and two other firms participated in the tender process by submitting their bid documents. Page No.# 4/6 4. The technical bids were opened on 02.08.2025, not at the office of the Bid Authority but at a hotel, and no result was declared on the said date. Subsequently, on 07.09.2025, the evaluation report was uploaded on the e-portal disclosing that the bids of respondent Nos.7, 8 and 9 were declared technically responsive, whereas the petitioner and other bidders were disqualified without assigning any reasons in the minutes of the Tender Evaluation Committee. 5. The petitioner has alleged arbitrariness, conflict of interest, false declarations, submission of ineligible and fabricated documents by respondent Nos.7, 8 and 9, and violation of the principles of natural justice, particularly on account of participation of related members of the Tender Evaluation Committee in the evaluation process. The petitioner has also questioned the alleged financial evaluation dated 09.09.2025, contending that no minutes thereof have been published. 6. Accordingly, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the impugned technical evaluation report, the consequential financial evaluation, and for a direction to reconsider/re-evaluate the technical and financial bids, as well as to set aside any Letter of Intent or Work Order, if issued. 7. The respondent-Department, by filing its affidavit, has accepted all the contentions raised by the petitioner. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the respondent has fairly conceded the submissions and prayers made in the writ petition and submitted that the Department has decided to review and reconsider both the technical and financial bids. It has further been submitted that due to the interim order passed by this Court, the Department could not proceed with the review process. It is also categorically stated that no Work Order or Letter of Intent has been issued pursuant to the impugned financial evaluation. 8. Learned counsel for the Department further submitted that in terms of the SOP issued vide order dated 20.08.2021, the Tendering Authority is the final authority to Page No.# 5/6 review both technical and financial evaluations, and that respondent No.3 is the Tendering Authority, who shall undertake the review of the entire tender process in accordance with law. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, agreed for disposal of the writ petition in view of the department conceding with the grievance of the petitioner, but prayed that the Court may issue appropriate directions and also consider extension of the completion period of the work, as the stipulated completion date is 31st March 2026 and delay has occurred due to pendency of the present litigation. 10. In view of the consensus between the parties and the categorical stand taken by the respondent-Department, this Court is of the opinion that the writ petition can be disposed of without adjudicating the merits of the allegations. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: (i) The impugned technical evaluation report pursuant to the NIT dated 20.06.2025, and the consequential financial evaluation, shall stand set aside. (ii) Respondent No.3, being the Tendering Authority, shall review and re- evaluate the technical bids afresh, and thereafter the financial bids, strictly in accordance with the terms of the NIT, the SOP dated 20.08.2021, and applicable rules, by a duly constituted and unbiased authority. (iii) The exercise of re-evaluation and finalization of the tender process shall be completed expeditiously, preferably within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (iv) It is clarified that no Letter of Intent or Work Order shall be issued on the basis of the earlier impugned evaluation. (v) The interim order passed earlier on 26.09.2025 stands vacated. Page No.# 6/6 12. Further, considering the delay occasioned due to pendency of the present litigation, the respondent-Department shall appropriately consider extension of the time for completion of the work beyond March 2026, if so required, in accordance with law. 13. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival claims. JUDGE Comparing Assistant