Page No.# 1/7 GAHC040004842025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/134/2025 M/s Vijay Agarwal and Sons a proprietorship firm registered office at Ward No.09/308, Chaliha Nagar, Tinsukia, PO and PS Tinsukia, Tinsukia District, Assam represented by its authorized representative Shri Doi Riba VERSUS The State of AP and 10 Ors through the Chief Secretary, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar. 2:The Secretary Age: 0 Occupation : Public Works Department Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 3:The Chief Engineer Age: 0 Occupation : Central Zone B Public Works Department Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Pasighat. 4:The Superintending Engineer Age: 0 Occupation : Basar Circle Public Works Department Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Basar. Page No.# 2/7 5:The Executive Engineer Age: 0 Occupation : Basar Division Public Works Department Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Basar Arunachal Pradesh. 6:The Tender Evaluation Committee Age: 0 Occupation : represented by its Chairman 7:Jumi Basar Age: 0 Occupation : The Cashier Office of the Executive Engineer Basar Division Public Works Department Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Basar Arunachal Pradesh. 8:M/s N T Agency Age: 0 Occupation : a proprietorship firm represented by its proprietor Shri Nabam Tadap Son of Shri Nabam Lillung resident of Parang Village PO and PS Sagalee Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 9:M/s Nabam Tullon Age: 0 Occupation : a proprietorship firm represented by its proprietor Shri Nabam Tullon Son of Shri Nabam Tana resident of Gumto PO and PS Doimukh Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 10:M/s Lokam Anu Enterprises Age: 0 Page No.# 3/7 Occupation : a proprietorship firm represented by its proprietor Shri Lokam Loring Son of Shri Lokam Sony resident of Rono Doimukh PO and PS Doimukh Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 11:M/s Agam Construction Age: 0 Occupation : a proprietorship frim represented by its proprietor Shri Tarem Darang Son of Shri Takit Darang resident of Mirbuk Pasighat PO and PS Pasighat East Siang District Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : Gallen Taloh, Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA ORDER Date : 01.04.2025 Heard Mr. G. Taloh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Tapin, learned Senior Government Advocate for the State respondent Nos. 1 to 66. 2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the Bid Evaluation Report dated 24.03.2025 (sic. should be 22.03.2025), issued by the Executive Engineer, PWD, Basar Division, Page No.# 4/7 by which the names of 4(four) bidders, excluding the petitioner were recommended for Technical Security and Evaluation. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction upon the respondent authorities for re-evaluating the technical bids submitted before the tender in question and for quashing of the tender process of the NIT dated 13.03.2025. 3. In brief, the case of the petitioner is that pursuant to a Notice Inviting Bid (NIB) dated 03.03.2025 for the work of “Construction of bridge over Kidi river in Disi village to connect via Porurime (Bam-Akajan NH), Leparada District” for an estimated cost of Rs. 20,75,75,000.00 (Rupees Twenty crore seventy five lakh seventy five thousand only), the petitioner and 6(six) others had participated. Although, the bids were uploaded successfully, the bid submitted by the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the petitioner did not submit physical bid documents as required under Clause 2.11.2 to the designated address mentioned in Clause 2.11.4. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on 18.03.2025, the petitioner’s representatives, namely, Shri Doi Riba had gone to the Office of the Executive Engineer, PWD, Basar Division along with the original bid documents in a sealed envelope and the said sealed envelope was handed over to one Smti. Jumi Basar, Cashier, Office of the Executive Engineer (respondent No. 7), who took out all the documents, photocopied those and after retaining the photocopies of the documents, returned the original documents with instructions to bring it on bid opening date i.e., on 22.03.2025. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the cashier in Page No.# 5/7 establishments of the Executive Engineer was the person in-charge for receiving the original bid documents. Accordingly, it is alleged that the Office of the Executive Engineer, PWD, Basar Division had manipulated the petitioner’s firm by tampering with the sealed envelope containing the original bid documents in a biased manner. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the writ petition be admitted for hearing and the entire matter may be examined. Thereafter, the relief as prayed for be granted. 6. Per contra, the learned Senior Government Advocate has referred to the order dated 28.03.2025, and it is submitted that he has sought for some time to obtain instructions, accordingly, he has produced the instructions in form of (a) a forwarding letter dated 22.03.2025, by the Executive Engineer, Basar Division, PWD, addressed to be the Superintendent Engineer, Basar Circle, (b) copy of a check-list for opening of all the bids in the presence of the bidders, as well as (c) the copy of letter of authorization dated 22.03.2025, issued by the petitioner to the Executive Engineer, Basar Division, thereby authorizing 2(two) persons, namely,” (1) Shri Doi Riba and (2) Shri Dakge Riba” to represent them. Accordingly, it is submitted that in the check-list which was signed by the authorized representatives of the bidders on 22.03.2025, the representative of the petitioner who had attended the bid opening was not Shri Doi Riba but he was Shri Dakge Riba, who has signed at the designated place alongside the note regarding the petitioner –“Hard copy not submitted”. 7. It is submitted that on the date when the bid documents were examined i.e., on 22.03.2025, Shri Dakge Riba, who is one of the authorized person of the petitioner was present and signed it. However, in this writ petition, the affidavit Page No.# 6/7 in support of the writ petition is sworn by Shri Doi Riba, and he has projected in the representation dated 24.03.2025 as if he was the person who had submitted the original bid documents. 8. On the direction of the Court, a copy of instructions has been handed over to the learned counsel for the petitioner. A copy of thereby is also made a part of the record. 9. In the check-list for opening of tender, it is clearly mentioned that hard copy of the bid documents were not submitted, which is counter signed by Shri Dakge Riba, one of the 2(two) authorized person of the petitioner. 10. It appears that on the date when the tenders were examined, the authorized representative of the petitioner did not raise any objection that documents were handed over to the respondent No. 7. Moreover, when the relevant tender Clause 2.11.2 requires that the physical documents were to be submitted at the designated address mentioned in Clause 2.11.4, the providing of documents to the respondent No. 7 was clearly at risk of the petitioner. There is no acknowledgement by the respondent No. 7 about receipt of the original bid documents and/or photocopy thereof. Therefore, condition of tender has not been compiled with by the petitioner. The representation made by Shri Doi Riba on behalf of the petitioner appears to contain incorrect statement that he had submitted the documents to the respondent No. 7 because as per the check-list, the other representative of the petitioner, namely, Shri Dakge Riba was present on 22.03.2025 and he had signed the check-list of the opening of the tender signed against the remark that the hard copy was not submitted. Therefore, the Page No.# 7/7 Court does not find any merit in the writ petition. 11. Therefore, the writ petition stands dismissed at the motion stage without issuance of notice on the respondents. 12. There shall be no order as to cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant