Page No.# 1/7 GAHC040002852026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/74/2026 M/s Khunjuju Enterprises Bomdila, having its office at Forest Colony Bomdila, PO and PS Bomdila, West Kameng District, Arunachal Pradesh 790001 being represented by its proprietor Shri Khandu C Khunjuju, Son of Late Deru C Khunjuju. VERSUS The Union of India and 7 Ors through the Ministry of Communication, Department of Telecommunications, Headquarter at Sanchar Bhawan, 20 Ashoka Road, New Delhi-110001 being represented by tis Secretary. 2:Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Age: 0 Occupation : registered and corporate office at Bharat Sanchar Bhawan HC Mathur Lane Janpath new Delhi 110001 Govt of India being represented by one of its Director. 3:The Chief General Manager Age: 0 Occupation : Telecom NE-II Circle Dimapur Page No.# 2/7 Nagaland (Arunachal Pradesh Manipur Nagaland) office at OCB Telephone Exchange Building Dimapur 797112 Nagaland. 4:The Principal General Manager (CFA) Age: 0 Occupation : Telecom NE-II Circle Dimapur Nagaland (Arunachal Pradesh Manipur Nagaland) office at OCB Telephone Exchange Building Dimapur 797112 Nagaland. 5:The Assistant General Manager (MM) Age: 0 Occupation : Office of the CGMT BSNL NE-II Circle Dimapur Nagaland (Arunachal Pradesh Manipur Nagaland) office at OCB Telephone Exchange Building Dimapur 797112 Nagaland. 6:The Assistant General Manager (CFA PLG) Age: 0 Occupation : Office of the CGMT BSNL NE-II Circle Dimapur Nagaland (Arunachal Pradesh Manipur Nagaland) office at OCB Telephone Exchange Building Dimapur 797112 Page No.# 3/7 Nagaland. 7:M/s F T B Enterprises Age: 0 Occupation : having its office at Near DC Banglow Bomdila West Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh 790001 being represented by its proprietor Shri Binod Sangchoju 8:A2Z Infraservices Limited Age: 0 Occupation : having its registered office at O-116 First Floor DLF Shopping Mall DLF City Phase -1 Arjun Marg Gurugram 122002 being represented by one of its Director Advocate for the Petitioner : Tsering Gyatso, Phurpa Tsering,Tayom Gamoh,Logsang Yountan,Dejum Tally Advocate for the Respondent : Marto Kato, DSGI BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date : 05-03-2026 Heard Mr. S. Sancheti, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T. Meto, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. M. Kato, learned DSGI, representing respondent No. 1. 2. The petitioner has challenged the termination order dated 13.02.2026, issued by the Assistant General Manager (CFA PLG), O/o the CGMT, BSNL NE-II Page No.# 4/7 Circle Dimapur, Nagaland whereby the work order in respect of Zone-B work of tender from Bhalukpong-Nechipu/Ziro (48.5 km), under Sub-Division Bomdila with route details and an estimated value of Rs.2,63,62,990/- was terminated. 3. The gist of the facts involved in the instant case is that Respondent No. 2, i.e. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, through Respondent No. 3, i.e. the Chief General Manager, Telecom NE-II Circle, Dimapur, Nagaland, floated a tender for installation of tubular poles for erection of aerial OF Cable/ADSS cable, testing and commissioning and erection/slinging of ADSS along with allied works on a turnkey basis for three zones, i.e. (i) Zone-A being Basar–Aalo (51 KM) under Sub-Division Aalo; (ii) Zone-B being Bhalukpong–Nechipu/Ziro (48.5 KM) under Sub-Division Bomdila; and (iii) Zone-C being Nechipu/Ziro Point–Rupa Mor (38 KM) under Sub-Division Bomdila. The petitioner was awarded the work order in respect of Zone-B with an estimated value of Rs. 2,63,62,990/- and accordingly, a Letter of Intent (LOI) was also issued on 01.07.2025 to the petitioner by Respondent No. 5, i.e. the Assistant General Manager (MM), O/o of the CGMT, BSNL NE-II Circle, Dimapur, Nagaland. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No. 7, i.e. F.T.B. Enterprises, who had supposedly worked with the petitioner earlier in certain projects, submitted a complaint before respondent Nos. 2 and 3 alleging that the petitioner had submitted false documents in his tender to obtain the aforesaid work. It is the case of the petitioner that, in spite of the aforesaid complaint, the work order was issued to the petitioner. However, due to repeated complaints filed by the respondent No. 7, the respondent No. 2, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, called for an explanation from the petitioner, which was duly replied to by the petitioner. In his reply, the petitioner stated that the respondent No. 7 had earlier worked with him in partnership with joint Page No.# 5/7 investment in respect of Work Order No. A2Z/BSNL-NFS/20-21/003 dated 17.12.2020, given by Respondent No. 8, i.e. A2Z Infraservices Limited. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that, in view of the performance of the aforesaid work order dated 17.12.2020, the respondent No. 7, on behalf of the petitioner, procured the experience certificate for the aforesaid work from the respondent No. 8. Accordingly, the petitioner had submitted the aforesaid experience certificate, which was believed to have been issued by the respondent No. 8, for procurement of the work in the instant case. It is the case of the petitioner that the aforesaid document was submitted bona fide without any ill intention, therefore, in his reply, he explained his case and prayed for non-consideration of the complaint filed by the respondent No. 7. After replying to the show cause notice, the petitioner was expecting a positive response from the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. However, to his surprise, he received the termination order dated 13.02.2026. 6. Mr. S. Sancheti, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the experience certificate which was submitted by the petitioner before the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for the instant work was given to him by respondent No. 7, who worked with him in the same project for respondent No. 8. Therefore, the petitioner had a bona fide belief that the work experience certificate must have been issued by the respondent No. 8. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted the experience certificate before the respondent No. 2. Learned counsel further submits that since the work was issued to the petitioner and he has already procured sufficient materials for the purpose of execution of the contract in the instant case, spending about Rs. 1 crore, which is known to respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 6, the Termination Notice issued by the respondent No. 6 is illegal and the same should be set aside. Page No.# 6/7 7. Mr. Meto, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. M. Kato, learned DSGI, for respondent No. 1, however, submits that there is no illegality in the issuance of the termination notice by Respondent No. 6. 8. This Court has heard the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and carefully perused the materials available on record. 9. It is noticed that the respondent No. 6, while issuing the impugned Termination Notice, dated 13.02.2026, has clearly mentioned that the experience certificate submitted by the petitioner appeared to be fake and forged and therefore, verification was sought from the respondent No. 8, i.e. A2Z Infraservices Limited, who purportedly issued the aforesaid experience certificate. However, the respondent No. 8 has categorically denied the issuance of any work experience certificate to the petitioner. The exact words used in the reply of the respondent No. 8 to the respondent authorities are extracted hereinbelow: “We have never issued the attached work order to the M/s Khunjuju Enterprises nor have we issued any work experience certificate to M/s Khunjuju Enterprises from A2Z Infraservices Limited.” 10. From the aforesaid Termination Notice as well as the reply given by the respondent No. 8, it is discernible that the petitioner was, in fact, not issued any work order by the respondent No. 8 nor any work experience certificate was issued to the petitioner. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner that he had worked for the respondent No. 8, thereby gained experience and that the same was documented by the respondent No. 8, appears to be false and incorrect. Page No.# 7/7 11. In view of the aforesaid, in the considered opinion of this Court, the instant writ petition does not have any merit and is liable to be rejected. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed at the motion stage. JUDGE Comparing Assistant