Page No.# 1/3 GAHC040011872024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/400/2024 M/s B K Construction Lachit Nagar, Jeoti Path, Dibrugarh, Assam 786001 represented by Shri Jotham Toko Hannan, Son of Late Toko Dol, resident of A Sector, Near Raj Bhawan, PO and PS Itanagar, Papumpare District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP and 3 Ors through Principal Secretary, Public Works Department, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar. 2:The Chief Engineer (PWD) Age: 0 Occupation : Central Zone B APPWD Pasighat East Siang District Arunachal Pradesh. 3:The Superintendent Engineering Age: 0 Occupation : Boleng circle Boleng Upper Siang District Arunachal Pradesh. 4:The Executive Engineer (PWD) Age: 0 Occupation : Mariyang Upper Siang District Page No.# 2/3 Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : Tayum Son, J Jasmine,N Tate,Tar Torum Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY ORDER Date : 24.02.2025 Heard Mr. T. Torum, learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner assails that the tender process dated 16.08.2024 for construction of road from PWD road to Pekimodi in Upper Siang District of Arunachal Pradesh (Length- 22.11 Km) under North East Special Infrastructure Development Scheme (Roads). The contention of the petitioner is that on the last date of submission of Site Verification Report and the Bank Guarantee in terms of NIT dated 16.08.2024, the concerned office who is responsible to receive the Site Verification Report as well as the Bank Guarantee, had closed the office and therefore, the petitioner was prevented from submitting the Site Verification Report and the Bank Guarantee. This Court while issuing notice of motion on 10.09.2024, opined that such contention is without any substance and it is hard to take a view that the petitioner was in fact prevented from submitting Site Verification Report and the Bank Guarantee within the stipulated time in the NIT. In view of the aforesaid prima facie finding, this Court declined to pass Page No.# 3/3 any interim order. It is submitted by Mr. N. Ratan, learned Additional Advocate General representing the Department that already letter of intent/work order has been issued in favour of the successful bidder. In view of the aforesaid submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his grievance may not be determined in the present writ petition, more particularly, in view of the subsequent development and therefore, he may be allowed to withdraw this petition with a liberty to assail impugned work award issue in favour of the successful bidder. Accordingly, this writ petition stands closed on withdrawal with a liberty as prayed for. JUDGE Comparing Assistant