Page No.# 1/8 GAHC040001502025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : IA(C)/25/2025 M/s T J Enterprises represented by its proprietor Shri Toi Romin, Aalo, Nehru Chowk, Aalo, PO and PS Aalo, West Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS The State of AP and 5 Ors represented by the Commissioner, Department of urban Development and Housing, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh. 2:The Commissioner Age: 0 Occupation : Department of Urban Development and Housing Govt of Arunachal Pradesh. 3:The Chief Engineer Age: 0 Occupation : Department of Urban Development and Housing Govt of Arunachal Pradesh. 4:The Surveyor of Works for Chief Engineer Age: 0 Occupation : Department of Urban Development and Housing Govt of Arunachal Pradesh. 5:The Executive Engineer Age: 0 Occupation : Department of Urban Development and Housing Aalo Division Arunachal Pradesh. Page No.# 2/8 6:M/s T Gangkak Enterprise Age: 0 Occupation : Aalo Village Likepatu PO and PS Aalo West Siang District Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : S K Deori, T Norbu,D Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), Linked Case : WA/4/2025 The State of AP and 4 Ors Age: 0 Occupation : Address:represented by the Commissioner Department of urban Development and Housing Govt of Arunachal Pradesh. 2: The Commissioner Age: 0 Occupation : Address:Department of Urban Development and Housing Govt of Arunachal Pradesh. 3: The Chief Engineer Age: 0 Occupation : Address:Department of Urban Development and Housing Govt of Arunachal Pradesh. 4: The Surveyor of Works for Chief Engineer Age: 0 Occupation : Address:Department of Urban Development and Housing Govt of Arunachal Pradesh. 5: The Executive Engineer Age: 0 Occupation : Address:Department of Urban Development and Housing Page No.# 3/8 Aalo Division Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS M/s T J Enterprises and Anr Age: 0 Occupation : Address:Aalo Nehru Chowk Aalo PO and PS Aalo West Siang District Arunachal Pradesh represented through its proprietor Shri Toi Romin S/o Late Karto Romin resident of Bopu Village PO and PS Liromoba West Siang District Arunachal Pradesh 2:M/s T Gangkak Enterprise Age: 0 Occupation : Address:Aalo Village Likepatu PO and PS Aalo West Siang District Arunachal Pradesh represented through its proprietor Shri Tugo Gangkak Son of Late Yumto Gangkak resident of Likepatu Village PO and PS Aalo West Siang District Arunachal Pradesh ------------ Advocate for : GA (AP) Advocate for : appearing for M/s T J Enterprises and Anr: Advocate , appearing for 2, respectively. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 30.01.2025 (K.R. Surana. J.) Heard Mr. D. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. S. K. Page No.# 4/8 Deori, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. N. Ratan, learned Additional Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 5 in this interlocutory application. 2. By filing this interlocutory application, the applicant, who is the first respondent in the connected intra Court appeal, has prayed for alteration, modification or vacation of the order dated 27.01.2025 passed by this Court in the connected appeal. 3. The connected intra Court appeal has been preferred by the respondent nos.1 to 5 herein (i.e. appellants) to assail the judgment and order dated 08.01.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) 112(AP)/2024, specifically with regard to the direction contained in paragraph-22 of the said judgment and order. By the said judgment and order dated 08.01.2025, while dismissing the writ petition of the applicant herein, had directed the respondent nos.1 to 5 to allow the applicant herein to participate in the bidding process and thereafter, to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. 4. The learned senior counsel for the applicant has submitted that the Executive Engineer, Urban Development and Housing, Aalo Division had issued notice inviting bid (NIB for short) on 13.01.2024 for the work of “Infrastructure Development of Government Secondary School at Kamba” at an estimated value of Rs.10,47,52,000/- (Rupees ten crore forty seven lakh fifty two thousand only). The technical bid of the petitioner was found valid and on opening of the financial bid, the bid of the applicant has found to be lowest amongst two bidders. However, in order to favour the respondent no.6, the concerned authorities vide minutes of meeting dated 29.02.2024, cancelled the said NIB on the ground that the applicant and the respondent no.6 herein had both quoted abnormally low rates. Thereafter, on 04.03.2024, the Executive Engineer, Urban Page No.# 5/8 Development and Housing, Aalo Division issued a fresh NIB (2nd call) for the said work. Accordingly, the applicant had challenged the said twin action of the respondent authorities to cancel the NIB and to issue a fresh NIB (2nd call) by filing WP(C) 112(AP)/2024. 5. It is also submitted that if by modifying/altering the interim order dated 27.01.2025 passed in WA 4(AP)/2025, the applicant is denied an opportunity of submitting his bid and to participate in the tender process, the respondent no.6 in this interlocutory application shall be the only tenderer and in the process, the bid would be settled without any competitive bidding. 6. The learned senior counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the learned Additional Advocate General for the State has made an incorrect projection before the Court that the applicant did not participate in the re-tender process. In this regard, by referring to the statements made in this interlocutory application, it is submitted that pursuant to the leave granted by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 12.03.2024 in WP(C) 112(AP)/2024 to submit tender, the applicant had approached the respondent authorities. However, the departmental authorities of the Urban Development and Housing informed the applicant that model code of conduct for General Elections, 2024, which was scheduled to apply from 19.04.2024 was already enforced and accordingly, all tender processes were stopped until further orders. Moreover, through his counsel, the applicant had submitted a letter dated 18.03.2024 to the respondent department regarding order dated 12.03.2024 passed by this Court in WP(C) 112(AP)/2024. It is submitted that after the General Elections, 2024, the applicant had approached the Urban Development and Housing, but they were hostile towards the applicant and therefore, the applicant decided to Page No.# 6/8 pursue the writ petition. It is submitted that the hearing of the writ petition was concluded on 11.12.2024 and the reserved judgment was declared on 08.01.2025. However, the said order was made available in the website of the Court on 11.01.2025. There was Bihu vacation from 11.01.2025 to 14.01.2025 and immediately thereafter, the applicant applied for certified copy, which he received on 15.01.2025 and immediately thereafter, on 15.01.2025, the applicant submitted a representation dated 15.01.2025, to the Chief Engineer, Urban Development and Housing Department that he was allowed to participate in the tender process and the authorities were requested to take necessary steps to facilitate the applicant to participate in the tender process. However, instead of complying with the directions, the connected writ appeal was filed by the State by suppressing the real facts and to project that the petitioner did not participate in the tender process, which is not factually correct. 7. The prayer in this interlocutory application is opposed by the learned Additional Advocate General. 8. In the order of this Court dated 12.03.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) 112(AP)/2024, this Court had granted leave to the applicant to submit his bid in pursuance to the NIT dated 04.03.2024. The applicant projects that because of enforcement of model code of conduct for General Elections, 2024, the submission of the bid was not accepted by the authorities. This projection of non-acceptance of bid is not borne by the records. By Advocate’s Notice dated 18.03.2024 (Annexure-3), issued on behalf of the applicant, the Chief Engineer of Urban Development and Housing Department was informed that by order dated 12.03.2024, this Court had clearly stated that financial bid of the bidders in pursuance to NIB dated 04.03.2024 shall not be open without the leave of the Court and request was made to honour the said Page No.# 7/8 order of this Court. Thus, no request was made to the respondent authorities to applicant to submit their bid. 9. Assuming that due to enforcement of model code of conduct for General Elections, 2024, the bid of the applicant was not accepted, such refusal was never brought to the notice of the Court. 10. The applicant got another opportunity to submit his bid vide judgment and order dated 08.01.2025 passed in WP(C) 112(AP)/2024. However, instead of submitting bid, the applicant, by letter dated 15.01.2023, has requested the Chief Engineer, Urban Development and Housing Department to provide the applicant the necessary details of the tender process dated 04.03.2024, such as submission deadlines, necessary documentation and any other relevant procedural requirement that need to be met and assured that the applicant would be complying with all the requirements of the fresh tendering process and would adhere to the procedural guidelines set forth by the department. 11. Therefore, the Court does not find that there was any attempt by the learned Additional Advocate General to mislead the Court. It is a fact that when the connected WA 4(AP)/2025 was taken up on 27.01.2025, the applicant had not submitted its bid. There was no requirement of the applicant to be informed of the bid submission deadline because it is not the respondent department, which had extended the bid submission deadline, but it is by the order of this Court vide judgment dated 08.01.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) 112(AP)/2024 that the applicant was given liberty to submit its bid. Therefore, when the department has not extended the last date of submission of bid, it cannot be expected that the Urban Development and Housing Department would give an extended deadline for submission of bid to the applicant. It is not acceptable that without knowing the necessary Page No.# 8/8 documentation or other procedural requirement, as sought for by letter dated 15.01.2025, the applicant had challenged the Notice Inviting Bid issued on 04.03.2024. 12. Therefore, the applicant is found to have not availed the leave granted by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 12.03.2024 in WP(C) 112(AP)/2024 to submit its bid till 27.01.2025, when order was passed by this Court in WA 4(AP)/2025. Accordingly, the applicant has not be able to make out a good case for any alteration, modification or for vacating the order dated 27.01.2025, passed by this Court in the connected WA 4(AP)/2025. 13. Accordingly, this interlocutory application stands dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant