Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 4348 (GAU)

M/s K T Enterprises v. The State of AP and 7 Ors

WP(C)/127/2025 · 2025-03-31

Kalyan Rai Surana

Writ Petition (Civil)body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/4 GAHC040004572025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/127/2025 M/s K T Enterprises proprietorship firm, to be represented by its proprietor Shri Kojum Tachi, Son of Late Bida Tachi, Village Passa valley, PO, PS and District Pakke Kessang, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP and 7 Ors through the Chief Secretary, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar. 2:The Commissioner (Power) Age: 0 Occupation : Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 3:The Secretary (Power) Age: 0 Occupation : Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 4:The Secretary Planning and Investment Age: 0 Occupation : Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 5:The Director Printing Age: 0 Occupation : Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. Page No.# 2/4 6:The Chief Engineer (Power) Age: 0 Occupation : Western Electrical Division Zone Department of Power Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 7:The Executive Engineer Age: 0 Occupation : Sagalee Electrical Division Papum Pare District Department of Power Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Sagalee. 8:The Assistant Engineer Age: 0 Occupation : (Electrical) Sagalee Electrical Sub Division Papum Pare District Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Sagale Advocate for the Petitioner : Bengia Arun, Tana Seth,Chera Natung,Nabam Roma,Tana Tony Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), SC(Power),Lissing Perme BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA ORDER Date : 01.04.2025 Heard Mr. N. Roma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. G. Ete, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appearing for respondents No.1, 4 and 5; and Mr. L. Perme, learned Standing Counsel for the Power Department, representing respondents No.2, 3, 6, 7 and 8. The petitioner was awarded the work for “construction of extension of 11KV line from Khemlee Village to Korlum Nalla i/c construction of 25KVA DTTR Page No.# 3/4 Sub Station and LT Line Sagalee”, for which, a work order dated 06.03.2025 was issued by the Executive Engineer (E), Sagalee Electrical Division, Department of Power, Sagalee. By a Corrigendum under file No.PLNG-11014/1/2024-O/o, DIR-SP-FPID- Part(1)/1817, dated 20.03.2025; Computer No.23690, issued by the Secretary (Planning & Investment), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, in partial modification to the said department’s earlier order dated 12.03.2025, the State Government has approved the change of nomenclature of the work viz., “C/o extension of 11KV line from Khemlee Village to Korlum Nalla i/c construction of 25KVA DTTR Sub Station and LT Line Sagalee”, which had the approval of the Power Department. Aggrieved by the said Corrigendum, the present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has completed 90% of the work and the change of nomenclature at this stage has adversely affected the petitioner. On the query of the Court, the learned Standing Counsel for the Power Department has submitted that by the change of nomenclature, no order adverse to the interest of the petitioner has been passed till now. It is also submitted that the said work, or any part thereof, has not been withdrawn from the petitioner. Accordingly, the Court is of considered opinion that, vide Corrigendum dated 20.03.2025, no order adverse to the interest of the petitioner has been passed. Therefore, the petitioner cannot have grievance with the change of nomenclature of the concerned work, as submitted by the learned Standing Page No.# 4/4 Counsel for the Power Department. Accordingly, this writ petition stands closed as pre-mature, because no order adverse to the interest of the petitioner has been passed. It goes without saying that, in the event the petitioner is aggrieved by any adverse order(s), it would be open to them to challenge the same. With the above, the writ petition stands closed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant