Page No.# 1/4 GAHC040018432024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/617/2024 M/s N T Agency Represented by its Proprietor Shri Nabam Tadap, S/o Shri Nabam Lillung, Regd. Office, B-Sector, Prem Nagar, Naharlagun, District Papum Pare, Arunachal pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP and 5 Others represented by the Secretary, RWD cum Chief Executive Officer, ARRDA, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh. 2:The Chief Engineer Age: 0 Occupation : PMGSY Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh. 3:The Superintendent Engineer Age: 0 Occupation : Rural Work Circle (RWC) Rupa West Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh. 4:The Chairman Age: 0 Occupation : Tender Evaluation Committee (RWC) Rupa West Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh. 5:M/s Mehlo Enterprises Age: 0 Occupation : Page No.# 2/4 represented by its proprietor Mrs. Apong Gyadi Karsingsa district Papum Pare Arunachal Pradesh 6:M/s PSK Enterprises Age: 0 Occupation : represented by its proprietor Abo Wangpan resident of village Dasatong PO/PS Kanubari District Longding Arunachal Prades Advocate for the Petitioner : Pritam Taffo, Tana Rini,Eho Menjo,Minter Karbak Advocate for the Respondent : Gimi Tarak, Kirmar Ado,Tokge Darin,Doge Lona,Marge Doji,Daina Tamuk,Dicky Panging,SC(RWD) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER Date : 19.05.2025 Heard Shri P. Taffo, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri G. Tarak, learned Standing Counsel, RWD Department, for the official respondent and Shri D. Panging, learned counsel appearing on behalf of private respondent No. 6. Page No.# 3/4 This writ petition was instituted challenging the tender process pertaining to NIT dated 03.07.2024 for construction of L028-0.15 Km pt of Nampe Sario Rd to Warriam via Parte Sullung, vide Package No. Package No. AR0301075. Though the pleadings have been exchanged in this case, Shri Panging, learned counsel for the private respondent No. 6, has apprised this Court that more than 90% of the work in question has already been completed in the meantime. While endorsing the aforesaid submission Mr. Tarak, learned Standing Counsel, RWD, further submits that the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) of Rs. 66,91,000/- has already been refunded to the petitioner. At this stage, Shri Taffo, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that in that view of the matter, he would not like to continue further with this petition. However, he clarifies that he is not withdrawing the challenge to the impugned matter on merits. Upon consideration of the aforesaid submissions and also taking note of the fact that more than 90% of the work in question has been completed, coupled with the further fact that the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) has already been refunded to the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that the adjudication of the present matter would serve no practical purpose and would be purely academic. Accordingly, without expressing any view on the merits of Page No.# 4/4 the challenge raised in this writ petition or the contentions advanced by the respondents, this writ petition stands closed. The communication dated 10.02.2025, pertaining to the refund of the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD), is made part of the records. JUDGE Comparing Assistant