Page No.# 1/4 GAHC040003202025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/89/2025 M/s T D Enterprise proprietor Raktum Duchok, Son of Tarak Duchok, resident of Gandhi Market, Daporijo, PO and PS Daporijo, Upper Subansiri District, Arunachal Pradesh. represented by its authorized Special Power of Attorney Holder, Shri Nade Tanti, Son of Shri Nade Lugu, resident of Panch Ali Lobi, PO and PS Itanagar, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP and 8 Ors represented by the Secretary, Rural Works Department Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar. 2:The Chief Engineer Age: 0 Occupation : Arunachal Rural Roads Development Agency RWD Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 3:The Superintendent Engineer Age: 0 Occupation : Rural Works Circle Papum Pare District Govt of Arunachal Pradesh. 4:The Executive Engineer cum PIU Age: 0 Occupation : Rural Works Department Laaying Yangte Division Kurung Kumey District Govt of Arunachal Pradesh. Page No.# 2/4 5:The Chairman Age: 0 Occupation : Tender Evaluation Board (Technical and Financial) for NIT Dated 14.03.2024 issued by the EE cum PIU RWD Laaying Yangte Kurung Kumey District Arunachal Pradesh for construction of road form Ruba PMGSY Road to Katuk bearing package No. AR/14/02/020 6:M/s Balaji Enterprises Age: 0 Occupation : represented by its proprietor Shri Yukar Taw resident of Papu Nallah PO Naharlagun PS Papu Hill Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 7:M/s Mepung Enterprises Age: 0 Occupation : represented by its proprietor Shri Nabam Rallo resident of Forest Colony Sagalee PO and PS Sagalee Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 8:Lokam Tassar Age: 0 Occupation : Son of Late Lokam Gari former MLA 21 Kurung Kumey Kurung Kumey District Arunachal Pradesh 791118 9:Pani Taram Age: 0 Occupation : Son of Late Pani Kanu MLA 21 Kurung Kumey District Kurung Kumey District Page No.# 3/4 Arunachal Pradesh. 79111 Advocate for the Petitioner : J Tsering, Dejum Tally,Licha Teni,Gotu Riba Advocate for the Respondent : Gimi Tarak, SC (RWD) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO ORDER Date : 03-03-2025 Heard Mr. J. Tsering, learned counsel for the petitioner through VC, who submits that the petitioner is aggrieved with the finding of the respondent authorities concerned on the Technical Bid submitted by him to be non-responsive in respect of the package No. AR/14/02/020 i.e. construction of L023-Ruba PMGSY road to Katuk. 2. The learned counsel submits that the rejection of the technical bid of the petitioner as provided in serial No.8 of the Bid Evaluation Report (Annexure-1) is not correct in view of the fact that the petitioner has clearly satisfied all the prescription of the bid documents which the petitioner has also annexed in the instant writ petition. The learned counsel submits that perusal of the same clearly indicates that the petitioner’s technical bid had been wrongly rejected by the respondent authorities. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner had submitted his representation before the Superintendent Engineer, Rural Works Department, Itanagar on 05.02.2025 (Annnexure- Page No.# 4/4 10), but however, the same has not been considered and disposed of till date. Therefore, he submits that the Court may direct the respondent authorities to maintain status quo in respect of the package concerned till the disposal of the writ petitioner or alternatively, the Court may direct the respondent authorities concerned to dispose of his representation within a time frame. 4. Mr. G. Tarak, learned Standing Counsel for the Rural Works Department submits that since the representation of the petitioner is said to be pending, Court may direct the same to be considered. 5. Having regard to the submissions made and on the perusal of the material available on record, importantly the fact that the representation dated 05.02.2025, is still pending as on date as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondent authorities, more particularly to the Superintendent Engineer, Rural Works Department, Itanagar to consider and dispose of the representation submitted by the petitioner by way of a speaking and reasoned order within a period of 10(ten) days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 6. A copy of the order to be passed shall be furnished to the petitioner. JUDGE Comparing Assistant