Page No.# 1/5 GAHC040005792025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/173/2025 M/s Durga Motors having its office at Banderdewa 7911223 near PTC Banderdewa, GST No.12AEFPL7277R1ZU, duly represented by its authorized representative Shri Tana Kakir, Son of Late Tana Teni, resident of Laptap, PO Toru, PS Sagalee, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP and 4 Ors represented by the Commissioner, Rural Works Department, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Civil Secretariat, Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh, 2:The Chief Engineer Age: 0 Occupation : rural Work Department Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 3:The Superintending Engineer Age: 0 Occupation : Rural Work Department Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Civil Secretariat Itanagar Arunachal Pradesh. 4:The Executive Engineer Age: 0 Occupation : Rural Work Department Page No.# 2/5 Sagalee Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 5:M/s Solo Enterprises Age: 0 Occupation : represented by its proprietorship Shri Techi Solo Village Karoi PO and PS Sagalee Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : Marto Kato, Kamin Teri,Tony Meto,Yasmin Gao,Mepe Ete,M Tanga,Nyali Sora Advocate for the Respondent : Gimi Tarak, SC (RWD) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA ORDER Date : 11.04.2025 Heard Mr. M. Kato, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. G. Tarak, learned standing counsel for the RWD, respondent nos.1 to 5. 2. In brief, the case of the petitioner is that, the petitioner firm has its registered office at Bandardewa within the district of Papum Pare. The petitioner projects himself to be a Class-II contractor. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent authorities had issued the impugned NIT dated of 12.03.2025, amongst others, for construction of 120 bedded hostel for Government Secondary School, Toru, in the district of Papum Pare at an estimated cost of Rs.5,04,90,000/- manually, which is stated to be in violation of Rule 160(i) of the General Financial Rules and the stipulations contained in the Page No.# 3/5 PWD Works manual. Moreover, it is projected that the time to purchase tender was opened only from 03.03.2025 to 15.03.2025, during office hours and that the last date of submission of tender was 15.03.2025. Accordingly, insufficient time was provided in this tender process. Accordingly, it is submitted that the respondent authorities have not conducted the tender process in a free, fair and transparent manner. It is also submitted that very limited tenders were submitted in this case and the tender in question was awarded to the respondent no.5. 3. Accordingly, the said tender process and the award of contract to the respondent no.5, who has issued the letter of acceptance dated 02.03.2025, is challenged by this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. By opposing the maintainability of the writ petition, the learned standing counsel for the RWD has submitted that as per the Arunachal Pradesh District Based Entrepreneurs and Professionals (Incentives, Development and Promotional) Act, 2015, as amended by Act-7 of 2020, w.e.f. 02.11.2020 (hereinafter referred to as the “2015 Act”), in respect of contracts/works which are having cost of above Rs.3.00 crore and up to Rs.8.00 crore are open for bidding to those eligible contractors who are registered in Class-II category and domicile within territorial jurisdiction of the assembly constituency. Accordingly, it is submitted that the petitioner’s firm, though registered in Papum Pare district, is situated within the jurisdiction of the 14-Doimukh Assembly Constituency. However, the work in respect of which the petitioner has now raised a claim, as mentioned in Sl. No. 1 of the Press Tender Notice dated Page No.# 4/5 12.03.2025, pertains to a place called Toru, which falls under the 15-Sagalee Assembly Constituency. Thus, though Toru falls within Papum Pare district, it falls under a different assembly constituency than that of the petitioner's registered address. 5. Countering the statement made by the learned standing counsel for the RWD, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the though the firm of the petitioner is registered in Bandardewa, Papum Pare district, but the petitioner is a resident of the Toru locality and therefore, he is eligible to participate. 6. Considered the materials available on record and also considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the both sides. 7. In the Schedule to the 2015 Act relating to cost of work above Rs.3.00 crore and up to Rs.8.00 crore, the eligibility of contractor column provided as follows: “all registered contractors in class-II categories domiciled within the territorial jurisdiction of Assembly Constituency”. 8. Therefore, if the petitioner does trade or business in a name different than his own and the said trade name and the firm is registered at Bandardewa in Papum Pare district, mere domicile of the petitioner in a different locality would not make him eligible to submit a bid in light of Entry-5 of the Schedule to the 2015 Act, as the said provision refers to registered contractor and not the proprietor of the registered contractor. The Schedule to the 2015 Act, being an integral part of the Act, has to be read as it is. 9. Accordingly, the objection to the maintainability of the writ petition, Page No.# 5/5 raised by the learned standing counsel for the RWD is accepted. 10. Accordingly, the petitioner is not found to have locus standi to challenge the present tender in question as the petitioner is ex-facie found to be ineligible to bid and the writ petition stands dismissed at the motion stage without issuance of notice on the respondents. JUDGE Comparing Assistant