Page No.# 1/4 GAHC040003412025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/92/2025 M/s Ragia Ku Enterprises a proprietorship firm, registered office at ESS Sector, Near Legislative Assembly, Itanagar, PO and PS Itanagar, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh represented by its proprietor Shri Langkung Ragia VERSUS The State of AP and 8 Ors through the Chief Secretary, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar. 2:The Secretary Age: 0 Occupation : Rural Works Department Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 3:The Chief Executive Officer Age: 0 Occupation : ARRDA Rural Works Department Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 4:The Chief Engineer Age: 0 Occupation : PMGSY Rural Works Department Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 5:The Superintending Engineer Age: 0 Page No.# 2/4 Occupation : Rural Works Circle Rural Works Department Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 6:The Executive Engineer / DPIU Age: 0 Occupation : Rural Works Division Laaying Yangte Division Kurung Kumey District Govt of Arunachal Pradesh. 7:The Tender Evaluation Committee Age: 0 Occupation : represented by its Chairman 8:M/s BB Construction Age: 0 Occupation : a proprietorship firm registered office at IG Park Near Dorjee Khandu Convention Hall Itanagar PO and PS Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh represented by its proprietor Shri Bengia Bado. 9:M/s Vivek Enterprises Age: 0 Occupation : a proprietor firm represented by its proprietor Shri Taha Tagru Son of Shri Tagru Tari G Sector PO and PS Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : Gallen Taloh, Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), Gamken Bam,T T Tara,SC (RWD),Gimi Tarak Page No.# 3/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO ORDER Date : 06.03.2025 Heard Mr. G. Taloh, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that by filing this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the decision made by the respondent authorities concerned rejecting his technical bid in respect of the work i.e., “C/o L024-Huri BRTF Road (Damin) to Machang”, bearing Package No.AR/14/02/03327, which was floated through NIT dated 14.03.2024. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that technical bid of the petitioner was rejected vide the Technical Bid Evaluation Report dated 07.01.2025, primarily on the ground of non-furnishing of the required documents. The learned counsel submits that according to the petitioner, he had duly submitted all the required documents and uploaded the same in the portal concerned. He further submits that the respondent authorities, on the other hand, accepted the bids of the respondents No.8 and 9, despite their bids having lacked the required and essential documents. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner had submitted a representation to the Superintending Engineer, Rural Works Department, Itanagar, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh on 09.01.2025, vide Annexure-5 to the writ petition, but however, the same has not been considered till date. 4. Mr. G. Tarak, learned Standing Counsel for the Rural Works Department, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner and other similarly situated Page No.# 4/4 persons have already approached this Court by filing WP(C) Nos.42/2025, 36/2025 and 34/2025. As all the said writ petitions were dismissed, the instant writ petition may not be entertained at this stage. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that the other writ petitions were filed based on different grounds, such as acceptance of the tender, bids, on the basis of favoritism. He submits that the present case is regarding the non-acceptance of the technical bid of the petitioner despite the petitioner having been furnished all the relevant documents. 6. Mr. G. Bam, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.9 also adopts the submission made by Mr. Tarak, learned Standing Counsel, RWD. He submits that no cause of action arises in this case. He also submits that the respondent No.9 has filed the caveat petition and is present before the Court. 7. Be that as it may, having considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties, more particularly the fact that the representation dated 09.01.2025 submitted by the petitioner to the authorities concerned having not been considered yet, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the Superintending Engineer, Rural Works Department, Itanagar, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh to consider and dispose of the representation dated 09.01.2025, by way of a speaking and reasoned order within a period of 1(one) week from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. JUDGE Comparing Assistant