Page No.# 1/12 GAHC020002942026 2026:GAU-NL:412 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : WP(C)/67/2026 SHRI ROKOVISIE RINO PROPRIETOR OF M/S ROKO RINO QUALITY STONE, REPRESENTED BY SHRI NEIVISIELIE RINO, POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, R/O JOTSOMA VILLAGE, KOHIMA, NAGALAND. VERSUS THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, NAGALAND, KOHIMA 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF NAGALAND DEPARTMENT OF WORKS AND HOUSING NAGALAND KOHIMA 3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (R AND B) NAGALAND KOHIMA 4:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (R AND B) NAGALAND KOHIMA. 5:M/S K. NAKHRO AND SONS NPWD CLASS - 1/235 JOTSOMA KOHIMA - 79700 Page No.# 2/12 Advocate for the Petitioner : T. B. JAMIR, ASEN T JAMIR,MEYIREN JAMIR,I JAMIR Advocate for the Respondent : GOVT ADV NL, BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. T.B. Jamir Mr. I. Jamir Advocate for the Respondent Nos. to 4 : Mr. N. Angami, Sr. Govt. Advocate Advocate for the Respondent No.5 : Mr. L. Iralu Mr. A. Sophie Ms. Menosieno Date on which judgment is reserved : 28.07.2026 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 31.07.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of : No the Operative part of the judgment ? Whether full judgment has been : Yes pronounced ? JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV) The present application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner who is a registered Class-1 Contractor challenging the legality and validity of the impugned short Notice Inviting tender (NIT for short) dated 13.02.2026 and the subsequent work order dated 26.02.2026 issued by the Chief Engineer, PWD (R&B) Nagaland, Kohima on the ground of non publication of the impugned NIT in the newspaper which is in violation of the Nagaland Public Works & Accounts Rules, 2012 (Rules of 2012 for short) and the Nagaland Public Works Department Code (NPWD Code, for short). Page No.# 3/12 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. T.B. Jamir. Also heard Mr. N. Angami, learned Sr. Government Advocate appearing for the State respondent Nos. 1 to 4 as well as Mr. L. Iralu, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the first week of March 2026 certain developmental works were being carried out along the stretch of Jotsoma Bypass Road and therefore, the petitioner filed an application under the RTI Act before the Public Information Officer, PWD (R&B) to furnish information on the details of the tender process in connection with the work relating to “Mitigation of Jotsoma Bypass Road from NH 29 to Forest colony via Jotsoma village (NH 29 Jotsoma to Bypass Road)”. 4. As per the reply furnished by the Public Information Officer, PWD (R&B) vide letter dated 14.04.2026, it was stated that since the work had to be taken up on emergency basis with very limited time frame for tendering process and the work was to be completed within the working season, publishing in the media would prolong the tendering process which will result in lapse of sanction. Hence, to avoid such delay, the NIT was published and notified in the office Notice Board which is open and accessible to all public. 5. It is submitted that on 26.02.2026, the impugned work order was issued to the private respondent No.5. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Chapter 4 of the Rules of 2012 specifically provides for publication of the tender notice in the newspaper. Rules 13 of Chapter 4 of the Rules of 2012 provides that tender notice has to be endorsed to all the Deputy Commissioners of the Districts, Secretary Page No.# 4/12 of the Department, all major heads of development departments, and notice board in addition to newspaper publication. Therefore, it is clear that not only the tender notice is to be endorsed to all the Deputy Commissioners of the Districts, Secretary of the Department, all major heads of development departments but it must be also published in the newspaper. However, in violation of the said provision, the tender notice was only displayed in the office notice board. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that Rule 291 of the NPWD Code also provides that sealed tender should invariably be invited in the most open and public manner possible, by advertisement in the Government Gazette or the press or by public notice. He submits that the Rules of 2012 have to be read along with Rule 291 of the NPWD Code. 6. The learned counsel further submits that the law is well settled that contracts by the State and its instrumentalities must be awarded through public tender by inviting the tender from eligible persons and the NIT should be advertised in well known dailies having wide circulation in the locality and violation of this process by the State renders the Government contract illegal and void. It is submitted that the State respondents ought to have followed the mandatory process by not only notifying the notice in the office notice board but ought to have notified the NIT in newspaper as provided under Chapter 4 of the Rules of 2012 and Rule 219 of the NPWD Code by making it open for all eligible persons to submit tenders to ensure transparency and promote healthy competition and to provide fair and equitable treatment of all tenderers. The learned counsel further submits that the impugned work order was issued on 26.02.2026 and as per the term and conditions mentioned in Page No.# 5/12 the work order, the work is to be completed within six months. However, as on 24.04.2026 except for some rough drainage excavation and construction of retaining wall for few metres, no other major works have been undertaken by the respondent No.5. It is also submitted that by order dated 05.05.2026, this Court had passed an interim order staying all the balance work that may be pending pursuant to NIT dated 13.02.2026 and the consequent work order. The learned counsel submits that the State respondents as well as the respondent No.5 have not mentioned anywhere in the affidavit regarding the percentage of work already executed by the respondent No.5. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies heavily on the case of S.P.N. Enterprise vs State of Nagaland and Ors reported in (2020) 3 GLR 768. In the cited case, the State respondents on the pretext that the construction of a retaining wall and fencing was to be done in a high security area did away with the publication in the newspaper. The NIT was placed on a notice board in the office of the Chief Engineer. The Coordinate bench of this Court held that the conduct of the State respondents in posting the NIT only on the notice board cannot be said to be in the interest of public exchequer and in public interest. It was held that the entire tender process was found to be shrouded in mystery and not transparent. The Court by relying on the case of Yikhyao Lotha vs State of Nagaland, 2014 (4)GLT 871, quashed and set aside the work order and the NIT. However, the work already done by the respondent No.7 was not interfered with and the State respondents were directed to publish a fresh advertisement giving wide Page No.# 6/12 publicity in known newspapers calling for bids from all eligible Contractors for the remaining portion of the work to be done. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner therefore submits that the present case is squarely covered by the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in S.P.N. Enterprise (supra). The learned counsel for the petitioner also relies on the case of Hukam Chand Shyam Lal vs Union of India and Others reported in (1976) 2 SCC 128, to support his submission that it is well settled that when a power is required to be executed by certain authority in a certain way, it should be exercised in that manner or not at all and all other modes of performance are necessarily forbidden. Applying the said principle of law, the State respondents could not have bypassed the procedure as laid down in the NPWD Code and Chapter 4 of the Rules of 2012. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner herein is not assailing the decision making process consequent upon the publication of the NIT but he is challenging the very legality of the NIT dated 13.02.2026 as the publication of the NIT only on the office notice board has violated the mandatory provisions regarding calling and acceptance of tenders. The learned counsel prays for quashing and setting aside the impugned NIT dated 13.02.2026 and the impugned work order dated 26.02.2026 and further prays for a direction to the State respondents to issue a fresh NIT for the remaining unfinished work. 9. The State respondents as well as the respondent No.5 by filing their respective affidavit-in-oppositions have raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition. Page No.# 7/12 10. The learned Sr. Government Advocate Mr. N. Angami submits that the present writ petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed in limine as the petitioner has not established any enforceable legal right or locus standi to question the tender process or the consequential work order. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a Class- 1 Contractor however, mere registration as a Class-1 Contractor does not automatically confer the locus to challenge every tender issued by the NPWD. 11. It is submitted that the petitioner must demonstrate that he satisfies the specific condition of the impugned NIT and that despite being eligible he was deprived of the opportunity to participate in the tender process. The learned Sr. Government Advocate further submits that in condition No.4 of the NIT dated 13.02.2026, it is stated that the criteria for issue of tender documents would be only for those Contractors who have successfully completed one similar nature of work during the last five years costing not less that 30% of the tender amount. The petitioner in the writ petition has not mentioned anywhere that he is eligible to participate in the tender process or that he has the criteria as prescribed in the NIT dated 13.02.2026. There are also no documents in the writ petition showing that he is eligible to participate in the tender process or that he qualifies to participate in the tender process. The learned Government Advocate submits that the instant writ petition is not a PIL. It is a challenge by a private Contractor seeking quashing of the NIT and the work order. It is submitted that the petitioner having not shown his eligibility for the NIT cannot seek the extraordinary relief of quashing the tender and the work order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Page No.# 8/12 Even assuming that the NIT is set aside, the petitioner has not been able to show that he would be eligible to participate in any fresh tender process in the said work. 12. The learned Sr. Government Advocate further submits that no averments have been made in the writ petition regarding any malafide, favoritism or manipulation. The petitioner has also not made any allegation that the successful Contractor was ineligible or that the accepted rate was inflated or that public loss has been caused. The learned Sr. Government Advocate submits that the impugned NIT and the impugned work order is with regard to mitigation and restoration of work from NH 29 to Forest colony via Jotsoma village. He submits that this road is of vital importance which is to be maintained and restored at the earliest as it is a well known fact that during the rainy season the NH 29 often gets inflicted by landslide and this is the only alternative road for the public to reach Kohima as well as the neighbouring State of Manipur. He states that that work has already started and it is of utmost importance that the same should be completed at the earliest and interference at this stage would not be in public interest. 13. The learned counsel for the respondent No.5 Mr. L. Iralu has also adopted the submission made by the learned Sr. Government Advocate and further submits that the petitioner does not have the locus standi to maintain the instant writ petition. He also submits that the petitioner has not fulfilled the criteria of completing one similar nature of work during the last 5 years costing not less that 30% of the tender amount and he has not pleaded nor produced any materials to show that he fulfills the said eligibility criteria. Page No.# 9/12 14. The learned counsel for the respondent No.5 submits that the respondent No.5 has already executed 30% of the work in pursuance of the work order dated 26.02.2026 and any interference at this stage would delay the work, cause escalation and adversely affect the public. He submits that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed with cost. 15. The learned counsel for the respondent No.5 by relying on the case of Tata Motors Limited vs Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking (Best) and Others reported in (2023) 19 SCC 1, submits that the Supreme Court has cautioned time and again that Courts should exercise a lot of restrain while exercising their power of judicial review in contractual or commercial matters. The Supreme Court held that grant of judicial relief at the instance of party which does not fulfill the requisite criteria is something which can be termed as misplaced. 16. The learned counsel also relied on the case of Raunaq International Ltd vs I.V.R Construction Ltd and Others reported in (1999) 1 SCC 492, in which the Supreme Court has held that the company which has challenged the award of tender does not fulfill the requisite criteria. They do not possess the requisite qualification and therefore, any judicial relief at the instance of a party which does not fulfill the requisite criteria is misplaced. The learned counsel further relies on the case of Airport Authority of India vs Centre for Aviation Policy & others, reported in (2022) SCC Online 1334, where under similar circumstances, the Supreme Court held that the High Court had committed an error by entertaining a writ petition at the instance of a party who had no locus standi to maintain the writ petition and the appeal Page No.# 10/12 against the order of the High Court by the Airport Authority of India was allowed. In a similar case, another Coordinate bench of this Court by judgment dated 18.08.2022 passed in W.P.(C) 96/2022 had dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner did not have valid GST registration either on the date of publication of the NIT or on the last date of submission of the bids fixed by the NIT. The petitioner’s only contention in the cited case was that the NIT for the contract work was not published in a widely circulated newspaper in the manner prescribed by law. It was held by the Coordinate bench that the petitioner was not eligible to participate in the impugned tender process and therefore he does not fall in the category of aggrieved person. The learned counsel for the respondent No.5 submits that the instant case is also squarely covered by the said judgment in W.P.(C) 96/2022. 17. Another submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent No.5 is that in a case where the maintainability issue is raised by the respondents, the Court has to first decide on the issue of maintainability before entering into the question of legality of the NIT. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has relied on the case of National Highway Authority of India vs Ganga Enterprises and Another reported in (2003) 7 SCC 410. The learned counsel further prays that the present writ petition may be dismissed as not maintainable. 18. This Court has considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings as well as the judgments relied upon by the learned counsels. 19. In the case of National Highway Authority of India vs Ganga Enterprises and Another (supra), the Supreme Court has held Page No.# 11/12 that when the issue of maintainability of the writ petition is questioned in a particular case, that question has to be first answered as it goes to the root of the matter. If the Contractor does not satisfy the eligibility criteria in a NIT, then even if the authority violated the tender rules, the Contractor cannot show that he had a right to compete or that he suffered prejudice because of non publication in the newspaper. Even if the NIT had been published in the newspaper he would still have been ineligible to submit a valid bid. 20. The State respondents as well as the respondent No.5 had stated in their affidavit-in-opposition that the petitioner was not eligible as per the condition laid down in the NIT. However, the petitioner has chosen not to file any rejoinder or reply to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents. 21. In the case of Naseem Bano vs State of U.P reported in 1993 (Supp) 4 SCC 46, the Apex Court has held that averments are deemed to be admitted if not controverted. In such view of the matter, the petitioner has not been able to produce any materials to show that he has fulfilled the eligibility criteria as laid down in the NIT dated 13.02.2026. Therefore, the procedural irregularity if any has not deprived the petitioner of any enforceable right. The law is well settled that judicial review is concerned with fairness, transparency and legality of the decision making process but a person who is not an eligible bidder cannot challenge the NIT or the work order merely because there has been a procedural irregularity unless he can establish legal right or unless the same is brought through a Public Interest Litigation. The petitioner has not been able to establish that he was prejudiced by the non publication Page No.# 12/12 of the NIT. An ineligible Contractor has no locus to challenge a tender process on the ground of procedural irregularities. The petitioner has not suffered any legal prejudice as he could not have been awarded the contract even if the NIT had been properly published in the newspaper. So the petitioner lacks locus standi to seek quashing of the NIT solely on the ground of defective publication. 22. It is also not the case of the petitioner that the eligibility criteria prescribed in the NIT itself was arbitrary or that the failure to publish in the newspaper was malafide to favour a particular Contractor. This Court is also of the view that in the case of S.P.N. Enterprise (supra), the question of maintainability and locus of the petitioner was not an issue and the eligibility of the petitioner was never questioned by the respondents in the said writ petition. As such, the facts of the case in S.P.N. Enterprise (supra) is not similar with the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 23. As a result, it is the view of this Court that the petitioner has not been able to establish his locus to sustain the writ petition at his instance and the petition is dismissed as not maintainable. 24. The interim order passed on 05.05.2026 stands vacated. JUDGE Comparing Assistant Kiyazha tuou Chase Digitally signed by Kiyazhatuou Chase Date: 2026.07.31 13:50:14 +05'30'