Page No.# 1/3 GAHC040001872025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : IA(C)/34/2025 M/s Tayo Enterprises Rending Complex, Barapani, Naharlagun, PO/PS Naharlagun, District Papum Pare, Arunachal Pradesh represented by its attorney Shri Arun Lamnio, Son of Shri Kocho Lamnio, resident of Neya colony, near Senki Park, PO and PS Itanagar, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP and 6 Ors represented by the Secretary, RWD cum Chief Executive Officer, ARRDA, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar. 2:The Chief Engineer PMGSY Age: 0 Occupation : Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 3:The Superintending Engineer Age: 0 Occupation : Rural Work Circle Rupa West Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh. 4:The Chairman Age: 0 Occupation : Tender Evaluation Committee RWC Rupa West Kameng District Page No.# 2/3 Arunachal Pradesh. 5:The Executive Engineer / PIU Age: 0 Occupation : Rural Work Department Bameng Division East Kameng Arunachal Pradesh. 6:M/s GYT Trading Centre Age: 0 Occupation : represented by it proprietor Mrs Tar Munni resident of Ganga Market Itanagar PO and PS Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 7:M/S Capital Enterprises Age: 0 Occupation : represented by its proprietor Miss Senbom Taipodia resident of C Sector Naharlagun PO and PS Naharlagun Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : Eho Menjo, Advocate for the Respondent : Gimi Tarak, SC (RWD) Page No.# 3/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER Date : 05.02.2025 Heard Mr. P. Taffo, learned counsel for the applicant/writ petitioner, who submits that in view of the present development, a fresh tender process is being initiated which is required to be stayed. Mr. G. Tarak, learned Standing Counsel for RWD, has however, informed that in the original tender process which was the subject matter of dispute in the writ petition, the L1 after his selection has declined the offer and therefore, a fresh tender process has been initiated. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that no case for consideration of any further interim order to stay the fresh process can be considered in an I.A. The I.A is accordingly, stands rejected. It is however observed that without prejudice to the aspect of challenging the fresh process in accordance with law, the applicant may participate in the same. JUDGE Comparing Assistant