Page No.# 1/7 GAHC040000012025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/572/2024 M/s Him Enterprises Age: 0 Occupation : Address:Nanna House Bank Tinali Itanagar PO and PS Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh 791111 in class I (B and B) under Civil Category represented by sole Proprietor Smti Nanu Wahge Wife of Shri Katung Wahge Niti Darlong village PO and PS Seijosa East Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP and 9 Ors Age: 0 Occupation : Address:represented by the Secretary Department of Rural Works Department Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 2:The Chief Engineer (ARRDA) Age: 0 Occupation : Address:Department of RWD Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 3:The Chief Engineer (Eastern Zone) Page No.# 2/7 Age: 0 Occupation : Address:Department of RWD Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 4:The Superintending Engineer Age: 0 Occupation : Address:Rural Works Circle Miao Changlang cum Chairman Technical Evaluation Committee Department of RWD Miao Circle Changlang District Arunachal Pradesh. 5:The Executive Engineer Age: 0 Occupation : Address:PIU-I RWD Changlang Division Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Changlang District Arunachal Pradesh. 6:M/s Peto Dumpum Enterprises Age: 0 Occupation : Address:B Sector Itanagar PO and PS Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 7:M/s Goodwill Suppliers Age: 0 Occupation : Address:G Sector Itanagar PO and PS Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 8:M/s Reempu Construction Age: 0 Occupation : Page No.# 3/7 Address:C Sector Naharlagun PO and PS Naharlagun Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 9:M/s Hardayal Construction and Projects LLP Age: 0 Occupation : Address:Sahakar Marg Main Road Jaipur 302001 10:M/s North East Engineering Construction Agency Age: 0 Occupation : Address:A Sector Naharlagun PO and PS Naharlagun Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. ------------ Advocate for : Lissing Perme Advocate for : Gimi Tarak appearing for The State of AP and 9 Ors: Advocate , , , , , , , , , appearing for 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, Page No.# 4/7 7, 8, 9, 10, respectively. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER Date : 13.03.2025 Heard Mr. L. Perme, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. G. Tarak, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and Mr. P.J. Saikia, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms. M. Nirola, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6. 2. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the technical board proceeding report and findings of the board proceedings, dated 28.10.2024, pertaining to Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) No. RWCM/TEN/NIT/PMGSY-III/B-II/2024-25, dated 08.10.2024, for construction and maintenance of PMGSY Road “MRL03-25 KM Point of Margherita Changlang Road to Phinbiro-II, via Relang”, whereby technical bid of the petitioner was declared as non-responsive and also challenge the part of the minutes of meeting of technical evaluation committee, dated 28.10.2024, pertaining to the aforesaid NIT No. RWCM/TEN/NIT/PMGSY-III/B-II/2024-25, dated 08.10.2024, bearing package No. AR/01/02/059, for construction and maintenance of PMGSY Road “MRL03-25 KM Point of Margherita Changlang Road to Phinbiro-II via Relang”, declaring the bid of respondent No. 6 as responsive, and further Page No.# 5/7 challenged the part of the minutes of meeting of financial evaluation committee, dated 05.11.2024. 3. It is to be noted here that this petition was first listed on 05.12.2024, for motion and on that day, Mr. G. Tarak, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5, prayed for granting him time to obtain instruction, and accordingly, it was listed on 10.12.2024, and on that day, Mr. Tarak had obtained necessary instruction and apprised this Court that the respondent authorities had taken a decision to rescind the online NIT, dated 08.10.2024 and would go for retendering of the project, and contended to close the petition. Thereafter, as agreed by Mr. Perme, learned counsel for the petitioner, the petition was closed with a direction to the respondent authorities to retender the project in accordance with law. 4. Thereafter, the respondent No. 6 had filed one review petition, being Review Petition No. 1(AP)/2025, before this Court for reviewing the order dated 10.12.2024, passed in the present petition as the same was being passed without affording an opportunity of being heard to the respondent No. 6, and as the technical bid as well as the financial bid of the respondent No. 6 was found to be responsive and the respondent No. 6 has a right to get Letter of Intent (LoI) from the respondent authorities for the said work. 5. Thereafter, hearing both sides, the order dated 10.12.2024, was reviewed and therefore, this writ petition is listed before this Court today. 6. It is also to be noted here that in the meantime, the respondent No. 6 has filed another writ petition, being WP(C) No. 1(AP)/2025, praying for issuing direction to the respondent authorities to finalize the tender process initiated, vide NIT No. RWCM/TEN/NIT/PMGSY-III/B-II/2024-25, dated Page No.# 6/7 08.10.2024, and to issue LoI in his favour, on the basis of the decision of the bid evaluation board, dated 05.11.2024. Thereafter, a Coordinate Bench of this Court after hearing the learned counsel for both the parties was pleased to direct the parties to maintain status quo and the said matter is also listed today along with this petition. 7. Before filing the said writ petition, the petitioner had also filed one representation to the respondent authorities not to rescind the tender notice and/or review the decision, if already taken and issue LoI for early commencement of the work so that the work can be executed during this favourable season and in case of deciding to rescind for any compelling reason, to intimate the reasons/grounds for rescinding the subject NIT dated 08.10.2024. 8. Thereafter, hearing both the parties, and as agreed upon said writ petition was disposed of by directing the respondent authorities to dispose of the representation dated 23.12.2024, filed by the said writ petitioner/respondent No.6 herein, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order, after affording an opportunity of being heard to him. 9. Mr. Perme, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the direction issued in WP(C) No. 1(AP)/2025, he has no objection in closing the present petition, however, he submits that the petitioner may be granted liberty to approach this Court again if the necessity arises in future. 10. Mr. Tarak, learned Standing counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and Mr. Saikia, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No. 6 submit that they have no objection in closing this writ petition, in view of the order Page No.# 7/7 passed in WP(C) No. 1(AP)/2025. 11. Taking note of the submissions of learned Advocates of both the parties, and as agreed upon, this Court is inclined to close this petition granting liberty to the petitioner herein to approach this Court again by filing appropriate application. 12. The parties have to bear their own costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant