Page No.# 1/3 GAHC040002542025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/71/2025 M/s Eka Enterprise represented by its proprietor Shri Nabam Eka, Son of Late Nabam Kojum, resident of B Sector, Naharlagun, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP and 3 Ors represented by the Commissioner, RWD, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar. 2:The Chief Engineer (PMGSY) Age: 0 Occupation : Rural Work Department Itanagar Arunachal Pradesh. 3:The Superintending Engineer Age: 0 Occupation : Rural Work Circle Itanagar Arunachal Pradesh. 4:The Executive Engineer Age: 0 Occupation : Rural Works Division Pakke Kessang Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : Dilip Saikia, Taku Pumbo Advocate for the Respondent : Gimi Tarak, SC (RWD) Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY ORDER Date : 27.02.2025 Heard Mr. D. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. G. Tarak, learned Standing Counsel, Rural Works Department for all the respondents. The grievance in this petition is that on the basis of a complaint lodged by an unsuccessful tenderer (M/s Papu Enterprises), the Superintending Engineer, Rural Works Circle, Itanagar has issued the impugned stoppage of work order dated 06.01.2025. This Court specifically sought instructions from the respondent authorities as regards nature of allegation and the present status of enquiry, if any. The learned Standing Counsel for RWD, on instructions submits that the compliant has in the meantime been withdrawn and therefore, the department accordingly is processing to withdraw the impugned order dated 06.01.2025, and the petitioner will be allowed to start the work immediately. In view of such instructions and submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel, RWD, in the considered opinion of this Court, nothing survives to be adjudicated in this present writ petition and accordingly, same stands closed. Page No.# 3/3 However, it is made clear that if the instructions and decision as indicated is not executed, the petitioner shall be at liberty to file a fresh writ application. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant