Page No.# 1/5 GAHC040001162025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/34/2025 M/s Ragia Ku Enterprises represented by its proprietor Shri Langkung Ragia, Son of Langkung Ragia, R/o ESS Sector, Itanagar, PO and PS Itanagar, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP and 6 Ors represented by the Secretary, Rural Work Department, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar. 2:The Chief Engineer Age: 0 Occupation : Arunachal Rural Roads Development Agency ARRDA Rural Works Department Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 3:The Superintendent Engineer Age: 0 Occupation : Rural Works Circle Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 4:The Executive Engineer and PIU Age: 0 Occupation : Rural Works Department Laaying Yangte Division Kurung Kumey District Arunachal Pradesh. Page No.# 2/5 5:The Standing Technical Committee Age: 0 Occupation : headed by its Chairman the Superintendent Engineer Rural Works Circle Itanagar. 6:M/s Capital Enterprise Age: 0 Occupation : represented by its proprietor Smti Senbom Taipodia Daughter of Shri Mahen Taipodia Resident of C Sector Naharlagun PO and PS Naharlagun Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 7:M/s Lokam Yasi Carriage and Construction Associate Age: 0 Occupation : represented by its proprietor Shri Lokam Tassar Son of Late Lokam Gari resident of D Sector Naharlagun PO and PS Naharlagun Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : Rajesh Sonar, Michi Khambo,Khyoda Yayo,Binny Nyaruce,R Taku Advocate for the Respondent : Gimi Tarak, Gamken Bam,T T Tara,SC (RWD) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA ORDER Date : 24.01.2025 Heard Mr. R. Sonar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. G. Tarak, learned standing counsel for the Rural Works Department appearing for respondents no. 1 to 4 and Mr. T.T. Tara, learned counsel for the respondent no. Page No.# 3/5 7, who is appeared as a caveator. 2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the Bid Evaluation Report-Part-1, dated 06.01.2025, relating to Technical Qualification Part of Bids, by which the petitioner was declared to be non-responsive. The petitioner has also prayed to direct the respondent authorities to forbear from giving effect to the said report dated 06.01.2025 and for declaring the bid of the petitioner to be technically responsive. The bidding process that is under challenge relates to tender for “C/o Road from L031-Nyokurinag to Leneriang”. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the said Bid Evaluation Report and has submitted that the petitioner fulfils all the requisite criteria of the (1) SBD, Section 2, ITB Clause 4.2(e); and 4.4B; (2) SBD, Section 2, Appendix to ITB, Clause 4.4 B (b)(ii); (3) SBD, Section 2, Appendix to ITB, Clause 4.4 B(b)(i); (4) SBD, Section 2, ITB, Clause 4.4 B (a)(ii); (5) Section 3, Qualification Information. By referring to the documents appended to this writ petition, it is submitted that the petitioner has fulfilled all the said criteria and accordingly, the decision of the tendering authorities to declaring the petitioner’s firm to be non-responsive is not sustainable. 4. It is further submitted that as per Clause 22.6 of the SBD, the petitioner has submitted a representation/complaint within 5 (five) working days of the declaration of result of the Bid Evaluation Report-Part-1 of the bids and the tendering authorities are required to resolve the complaint before opening of the Part-II of the bid. 5. The learned standing counsel for the RWD Department has submitted that the writ petition may be disposed of by directing the competent Page No.# 4/5 authority/tendering authority/employer to dispose of the representation/complaint submitted by the petitioner. However, as it has been submitted at the Bar by the learned standing counsel for the RWD, that the Part-II bid has been opened today i.e. 24.01.2025. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent no. 7 has submitted that declaring of the petitioner to be non-responsive was justified. However, in view of the submissions made by the learned representing the RWD Department, it would not be appropriate for this Court to delve into the various clauses under which the petitioner was held to be non-responsive as such an examination may prejudice the parties. 7. As the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the representation/complaint dated 10.01.2025 (Annexure-28 to the writ petition), which according to him has not been disposed of, in view of the submissions made by the learned standing counsel for the RWD Department, this Court is inclined to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the competent authority/tendering authority/employer of the tender issued for “C/o Road from L031-Nyokurinag to Leneriang” under Kurung Kumey District, dated 14.03.2024, to dispose of the representation/ complaint dated 10.01.2025 (Annexure-28) submitted by the petitioner till 2(two) days of such disposal, the Part-II bid shall not be finalized. 8. The petitioner shall serve certified copy of this order before the Executive Engineer, RWD/DPIU, Laying Yangte Division, Kurung Kumey (respondent no.4), which would constitute due service on the RWD respondents. Photocopy of this order shall also be provided to the learned standing counsel for the RWD Department so that the same can also be communicate from his side also. Page No.# 5/5 9. In view of the above, the writ petition stand disposed of at motion stage without issuing notice to the respondents. Needless to observe that in case the petitioner is still aggrieved, it would be open to the petitioner to avail such remedies as he may be so advised. JUDGE Comparing Assistant