Page No.# 1/5 GAHC040001582025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : PIL/4/2025 Sangha Roruk resident of Narba Colony, Near Tourism Office Itanagar, PO and PS Itanagar, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP and 7 Ors represented by the Secretary of RWD, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar. 2:The Chief Executive Officer Age: 0 Occupation : ARRDA RWD Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar Civil Secretariat block No.2 Itanagar Arunachal Pradesh. 3:The Chief Engineer (PMGSY) Age: 0 Occupation : ARRDA RWD Itanagar Rural Works Department C Sector Itanagar Arunachal Pradesh. 4:The Superintending Engineer Age: 0 Occupation : Page No.# 2/5 RWD ARRDA RWD Rural Works Department Itanagar Circle Arunachal Pradesh. 5:The Executive Engineer / DPIU Age: 0 Occupation : ARRDA Rural Works Department Rural Works Division Laaying Yangte Kurung Kumey District Arunachal Pradesh 6:The Tender Evolution Committee Age: 0 Occupation : represented by its Chairman 7:M/s Tayo Enterprises Age: 0 Occupation : represented by its Proprietor Shri Chakpu Gumsi C/o Office of the Chief Engineer (PMGSY) ARRDA RWD Itanagar Rural Works Department C Sector Itanagar Arunachal Pradesh. 8:M/s Ragiaku Enterprises Age: 0 Occupation : represented by Shri Chello Victor C/o Office of the Chief Engineer (PMGSY) ARRDA RWD Itanagar Rural Works Department C Sector Itanagar Arunachal Prades Advocate for the Petitioner : Kago Taja, 1 K Ori,Jummar Taipodia,Nabam Talin,K Tagyang Page No.# 3/5 Advocate for the Respondent : Gimi Tarak, SC (RWD) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 31.01.2025 (K.R. Surana, J) Heard Mr. K. Taja, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. T. Tapak, learned standing counsel for the RWD appearing for respondent nos.1 and 6. 2. By way of this PIL filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the NIT No. EE/RWD/LY/Tender-VVP/2023-24 dated 14.03.2024, published by the Executive Engineer, DPIU, RWD, Laaying Yangle Division for package of Construction of L033-Mangio I to Pariang, Package No. AR/14/02/038. 3. The petitioner claims to be a social and spirited person and devotes his time and energy for the welfare of the general public and claims to be a resident of Mangio village of Parsi Parlo Circle in Kurung-Kumey District. 4. The petitioner claims that the project, for which the aforesaid tender process was initiated, was done mala fide, without adhering to any norms in an effort to siphon and misuse public funds to favour the favoured persons/firms. 5. In brief, the illegalities alleged by the petitioner are as follows: a) There is no settlement in the project area, whereas the guidelines provides that there should be a minimum of 250 inhabitants. b) Consent of the land owners were not taken. Page No.# 4/5 c) The signatures of few landowners which were obtained are forged. 6. It is also projected that on an earlier occasion, a similar NIT was issued on 14.03.2024, which also contained certain illegalities like absence of non-duplicacy certificate; no land availability certificate was obtained; and that the agreement with land owners was done after publication of the NIT. 7. The petitioner claims that he has submitted representations dated 14.02.2024 and 23.02.2024 to the Secretary, RWD, which was not attended to. He has also lodged an FIR on 24.02.2024, which was registered as GD Entry No. 11 dated 27.09.2024. Thereafter, the present PIL has been filed. 8. In respect of tender matters, the Court is of the considered the opinion that it is for the intending participants of the tender process or the persons submitting their bid who can on certain grounds available, maintain a PIL. A PIL would not be maintainable in respect of tenders of this nature which is for the development of rural areas of the State. 9. The Court has no mechanism to embark on a fact finding enquiry and if such a PIL is entertained, any person may approach the Court and demand that in each and every tender an inquiry should be made if the work should be tendered. Whether there are minimum numbers of inhabitants in the area or that whether or not consent of the land owners is required and whether same has been obtained are questions which require a roving and fishing inquiry. Moreover, in the event signatures of land owners are forced, it is open for the aggrieved persons to allege forgery and avail appropriate remedy and/or to approach the Civil Court for annulling the document containing their signatures. For such an issue, a PIL would not be maintainable. 10. As per the information available in the internet, there is a unique village Page No.# 5/5 in the State of Arunachal Pradesh by the name Malogam, where there is a single female voter and the Election Commission of India had made arrangements to send the polling machinery to this said village to enable the said single voter to exercise the right of franchise. Therefore, if a rural development work is extended even to that village where there is hardly any population, it is not for the Court to declare such developmental work as illegal. This must be best left to the authorities in the executive and in the legislature of the State as to whether any work to be done even if the guidelines require a minimum number of populations. 11. Therefore, in the opinion of the Court, it is not open for the Court to substitute its opinion upon the planned decision taken by the respondent authorities to extend development to a particular area. It is not the case of the petitioner that rural development of the area would be detrimental to the area. 12. In the case of Uflex Ltd. v. State of Tamilnadu, (2022) 1 SCC 165, the Supreme Court of India had expressed that Constitutional Courts should exercise caution while interpreting in contractual and tender matters, disguised as Public Interest Litigation. 13. Therefore, on all counts, this PIL fails and the same is dismissed. 14. As this PIL is being dismissed at the motion stage without issues of notice, the Court refrains from imposing exemplary cost on the petitioner. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant