Page No.# 1/5 GAHC040000882025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/27/2025 M/s N T Agency Pagatara, PO Naharlagun, PS Papu Hill, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh represented by its power of attorney holder Shri Lokam Mallo, Son of Lokam Tachu, resident of Bamo Village, PO Damin, PS Koloriang, Kurung Kumey District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP and 5 Ors represented by the Secretary, Rural Works Department, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar. 791111 2:The Superintending Engineer Age: 0 Occupation : RWC cum Chairman Tender Evaluation Committee for Package No. AR/14/02/045 Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 3:The Tender Evaluation Committee Age: 0 Occupation : for package No. AR/14/02/045 RWD Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 4:The Executive Engineer/ DPIU Age: 0 Occupation : Rural Works Division (RWD) Laaying Yangte Division Kurung Kumey District Page No.# 2/5 Arunachal Pradesh. 5:M/s D and L Enterprise Age: 0 Occupation : D and L Apartment Takar Colony Barapani Naharlagun Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 6:M/s Sports India Construction Company Age: 0 Occupation : Gohpur Tinali Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : Khoda Tama, Sumit Chhetri,R Barman,Tasso Dodung,Khoda Yubey,Jambey Tsering,T Lampung Advocate for the Respondent : Gimi Tarak, Gamken Bam,T T Tara,SC (RWD) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA ORDER Date : 21-01-2025 Heard Mr. K. Tama, 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. G. Bam, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5, who is appeared as a caveator. 2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Page No.# 3/5 petitioner has prayed for setting aside the Bid Evaluation Report-Part-1, dated 09.01.2025, 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 09.01.2025 and for declaring the bid of the petitioner to be technically responsive. 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 3, Clause 13.3; (2) SBD, Section 2, ITB, Clause 4.4 B (a)(ii); (3) SBD, Section 2, ITB, Clause 4.2(e); (4) SBD, Section 2, ITB, Clause 4.4 B; (5) SBD, Section, 2, Appendix to ITB, Clause 4.4 B (b)(ii); (6) SBD, Section 2, Appendix to ITB, Clause 4.4 B (b)(i); (7) SBD, Section 2, ITB, Clause 4.4 B (a)(ii); (8) SBD 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 authority/tendering authority/employer to dispose of the representation/complaint submitted by the petitioner before opening of the Part- Page No.# 4/5 II of the bid. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 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 16.01.2025 (Annexure-K 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 L021- Goa PMGSY Road to Rani via Fub and Rawiok” under Kurung Kumey District, dated 14.03.2024, to dispose of the representation/ complaint dated 16.01.2025 (Annexure-K) submitted by the petitioner, at least 2 (two) days prior to date notified for opening of the Part-II bid. 8. The petitioner shall serve certified copy of this order before the Executive Engineer, RWD/DPIU, Laying Yangte Division, Kurung Kumey, 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. 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 Page No.# 5/5 remedies as he may be so advised. JUDGE Comparing Assistant