Page No.# 1/6 GAHC040001022025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WA/2/2025 M/s B M Store represented by Shri Kholie Hania, attorney holder of M/s B M Store, Son of Shri Kholie Tayo, a permanent resident of Upper Jumi, PO Kimin, PS Kimin, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS The State of AP and 3 Ors represented through the Secretary, Rural Development, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar. 2:The Director Age: 0 Occupation : Rural Development Papum Pare District Yupia Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 3:The Project Director Age: 0 Occupation : Rural Development Papum Pare District Yupia Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 4:The Deputy Commissioner Age: 0 Occupation : Papum Pare District Yupia Arunachal Pradesh Page No.# 2/6 Advocate for the Petitioner : S K Deori, Talu Kamsar,Tsering Lhamu,Puto Bui Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), SC (RD),Binter Picha Linked Case : WA/3/2025 M/s B M Store Age: 0 Occupation : Address:represented by Shri Kholie Hania attorney holder of M/s B M Store Son of Shri Kholie Tayo a permanent resident of Upper Jumi PO Kimin PS Kimin Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS The State of AP and 3 Ors Age: 0 Occupation : Address:through the Secretary Urban Development Department Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 2:The Deputy Commissioner Age: 0 Occupation : Address:Papum Pare District Yupia Arunachal Pradesh. 3:The Executive Engineer Age: 0 Occupation : Address:District Urban Development Agency Papum Pare District Govt of Arunachal Pradesh. 4:The Director / Registrar Page No.# 3/6 Age: 0 Occupation : Address:Satyajit Ray Film and Television Institute Arunachal Pradesh Camp Office EM Bypass Panchasayar Kolkata 700009 ------------ Advocate for : S K Deori Advocate for : GA (AP) appearing for The State of AP and 3 Ors: Advocate , , , appearing for 2, 3, 4, respectively. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 22.01.2025 (K.R. Surana, J) Heard Mr. D. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. S.K. Deori, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. R.H. Nabam, learned Addl. Advocate General, assisted by Ms. P. Pangu, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 4, as well as Mr. B. Picha, learned standing counsel for Rural Development Department, appearing for respondent nos. 2 and 3 through video conferencing mode. 2. WA 2(AP)/2025 is preferred against the order dated 23.12.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) 611(AP)/2024, by which though notice was issued, no interim order was passed to stay the impugned Page No.# 4/6 cancellation order dated 12.12.2024, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Papum Pare District, Yupia. 3. WA 3(AP)/2025 is preferred against the order dated 10.01.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) 9(AP)/2025, by which though notice was issued, no interim order was passed to stay the impugned cancellation order dated 12.12.2024, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Papum Pare District, Yupia. 4. The case of the appellant, in brief, is that an NIT was issued by the Project Director, Rural Development Department, Papum Pare District, Yupia, being “Tender for selection of outsourced manpower agency for engagement of contractual staff for FTI, Arunachal Pradesh. On being declared successful, the Deputy Commissioner, Papum Pare District, Yupia issued a Letter of Intent dated 06.11.2024 in favour of the appellant. It is projected that in terms of the said LI, the appellant had submitted an acceptance letter dated 08.11.2024 along with bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.19,72,800/-. However, pursuant to political and public interference, minutes of meeting held on 12.12.2024 was prepared on 13.12.2024 by the Deputy Commissioner, Papum Pare District, Yupia wherein it is recorded that the MLA, 14-Doimukh verbally directed the Project Director (RD)-cum-DPDO to initiate the recruitment process directly. The appellant submitted a representation on 17.12.2024 for revocation of the cancellation order dated 12.12.2024, but no action was taken, the appellant has filed the said WP(C) 611(AP)/2024 before this Court. 5. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the appellant that in the meanwhile, the Deputy Commissioner-cum- Chairman, District Urban Development Agency, Papum Pare District, Yupia has issued a recruitment Page No.# 5/6 advertisement dated 21.12.2024 for conducting direct recruitment through walk- in-interview on 02.01.2025 and 03.01.2025 for filling up several vacant posts under 25 head of posts at a consolidated salary as mentioned therein. The said action has been assailed by filing WP(C) 9(AP)/2025. Accordingly, it is submitted that if no interim order is passed, both the writ petitions would be rendered infructuous. 6. On a perusal of the order impugned in this writ petition, it is seen that the following interim order was passed by the learned Single Judge:- “In the interim, it is provided that pursuant to the impugned cancellation order, if any, consequential action is taken, the same shall be subject to the outcome of the precedent proceedings.” 7. Having heard the learned senior counsel for the appellant, the learned Addl. Advocate General and the learned standing counsel for the Rural Development Department, the Court is of the considered opinion that the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge sufficiently protects the interest of the appellant because whatever consequential action is being taken pursuant to impugned cancellation order, the same would be subject to outcome of the said WP(C) 611(AP)/2024. Therefore, any action taken would have to give way to the outcome of WP(C) 611(AP)/2024. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge. 8. As a common order has been passed in WA 2(AP)/2025 and WA 3(AP)/2025, the Court is inclined to clarify that WA 3(AP)/2025 was filed after issuance of the advertisement dated 21.12.2024, referred above. Therefore, the Court is of the considered opinion that as appellant in both the appeals is the Page No.# 6/6 same firm, the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) 611(AP)/2024 would be a sufficient safeguard to the appellant as the recruiting agency as per the said advertisement is also the Deputy Commissioner, Papum Pare District, Yupia is also the Chairman, District Urban Development Agency. Therefore, we do not find that the appellant is prejudiced in any manner whatsoever. 9. Accordingly, this intra court appeal is dismissed without issuance of notice on the respondents. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant