Page No.# 1/11 GAHC040009002024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : IA(C)/67/2026 M/s Woodhill Shivam (Joint Venture) Age: 0 Occupation : Address:OU 522 5th Floor Esplanade Commercial Development Unit No. 32 721 Rasulgarh Bhubaneswar Orissa 751010 VERSUS Vijay Jamoh and 7 Ors Age: 0 Occupation : Address:Son of Tasing Jamoh presently residing at D Sector Naharlagun PO and PS Naharlagun Papumpare District Arunachal Pradesh 2:Doge Lona Age: 30 Occupation : Address:Son of Jomi Lona presently residing at Polo colony Naharlagun PO and PS Naharlagun Papumpare District Arunachal Pradesh 3:The State of Arunachal Pradesh Page No.# 2/11 Age: 0 Occupation : Address:represented by the Chief Secretary Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar 4:The Chief Secretary Age: 0 Occupation : Address:Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar 5:The Commissioner/ Secretary Age: 0 Occupation : Address:PWD Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar 6:The Chief Engineer (Highway Zone) Age: 0 Occupation : Address:PWD Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar 7:The Executive Engineer Age: 0 Occupation : Address:Naharlagun Highway Division PWD Nirjuli Papumpare District Arunachal Pradesh 8:The Secretary Age: 0 Occupation : Address:Govt of India Ministry of Road Transport and Highways Transport Bhawan 1 Parliament Street New Delhi 110001 ------------ Advocate for : Rakesh Dubey Advocate for : Dicky Panging appearing for Vijay Jamoh and 7 Ors: Advocate , , Page No.# 3/11 , , , , , appearing for 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, respectively. Linked Case- PIL No. 11/2024 Vijay Jamoh and Anr Son of Tasing Jamoh, presently residing at D Sector, Naharlagun, PO and PS Naharlagun, Papumpare District, Arunachal Pradesh 2: Doge Lona Age: Occupation : Son of Jomi Lona presently residing at Polo colony Naharlagun PO and PS Naharlagun Papumpare District Arunachal Prades VERSUS The State of AP and 7 Ors represented by the Chief Secretary, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar 2:The Chief Secretary Age: 0 Page No.# 4/11 Occupation : Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar 3:The Commissioner/ Secretary Age: 0 Occupation : PWD Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar 4:The Chief Engineer (Highway Zone) Age: 0 Occupation : PWD Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar 5:The Executiv Engineer Age: 0 Occupation : Naharlagun Highway Division PWD Nirjuli Papumpare District Arunachal Pradesh 6:The Secretary Age: 0 Occupation : Govt of India Ministry of Road Transport and Highways Transport Bhawan 1 Parliament Street New Delhi 110001 7:M/s Woodhill Shivam (Joint Venture) Age: 0 Occupation : OU 522 5th Floor Esplanade Commercial Development Unit No. 32 721 Rasulgarh Bhubaneswar Orissa 751010 Page No.# 5/11 8:M/s T K Consortium Pvt Ltd Age: 0 Occupation : Model Village Naharlagun Papumpare District Arunachal Prades Advocate for the Petitioner : Dicky Panging, Rosy c Lowangcha,Tokge Darin,Kirmar Ado,Marge D,Daina Tamuk Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), Eddie Payeng,R Dubey,Kamal Saxena,Rajiv Cheri,Kirmani Lollen,Tao Tarin,A T Tara,J Likha,DSGI,Marto Kato,SC(Highway),Rintu Saikia BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER 17.03.2026 (ROBIN PHUKAN, J) Heard Mr. R. Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant/respondent No. 7. Also heard Mr. D. Panging, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos. 1 & 2; Mr. N. Ratan, learned Additional Advocate General for the opposite party Nos. 3, 4 & 5; Mr. R. Saikia, learned Standing Counsel for the opposite party Nos. 6 & 7 and Mr. M. Kato, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, for the opposite party No. 8. 2. Mr. Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant submits that this interlocutory application has been preferred by the applicant/respondent No. 7 in the PIL No. 11/2024; for issuing direction to the respondent authorities not to proceed further with the termination of the contract in question, till the completion of the extension period of the contract; i.e., till 31.07.2026. Page No.# 6/11 2.1. Mr. Dubey, further submits that the applicant/respondent No. 7 has been executing the work of 4-Laning of Itanagar to Banderdewa Section of NH-415, from Km 40+430 to Km 51-735 (Pkg-B) on EPC Mode, which was awarded on 26.11.2020, and the period of completion of the work is extended up to 31.07.2026. 2.2 It is the further submission of Mr. Dubey that the PIL No. 11/2024, was instituted by the opposite party Nos. 1 & 2, alleging tardy progress of work, which was awarded to the applicant/respondent No. 7. 2.3 Drawing the attention of this Court to the order, dated 11.02.2026, passed by this Court in the PIL No. 11/2024, especially, to paragraph Nos. 4, 5, 6 & 7; Mr. Dubey submits that in the said paragraphs, this Court has observed that- “This matter has come up on numerous occasions and this Court vide an order dated 24.12.2025 had recorded that the work has to be completed within 31.07.2026 beyond which, no extension is required to be given. It may be mentioned that the schedule date of completion was 07.12.2024 and from that date, more than a year has passed. On a specific query made to the learned counsel for the Department along with the Officer, who is present as well as Shri R. Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent No. 7, a response has been given which would be practically impossible to complete the work by the extended deadline on 31.07.2026. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the importance of the matter which has got immense public interest, this Court is of the opinion that the Department be given a liberty to take all further steps for timely completion of the work by ensuring that the standards are maintained. The actions taken by the Department are to be apprised to this Page No.# 7/11 Court by the next date.” 2.4 It is the further submission of Mr. Dubey, that on the basis of another order, dated 22.01.2026, the PWD Department has filed an affidavit, responding to the issue raised by the respondent No. 7 and though, a copy of the same was not served upon the respondent No. 7, it could be gathered from the submission on their behalf that they were seeking liberty to proceed with the termination of the contract in question and after the order of this Court, dated 11.02.2026, passed in PIL No. 11/2024; the Chief Engineer, Highway Division, PWD, Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, issued a notice of intention to terminate the contract in question, dated 13.02.2026; to the applicant. Though, the order, dated 24.12.2025, does not lay down that any extension beyond 31.07.2026, cannot be granted as a matter of course and would depend upon various factors, as per contractual terms and that, the perspective of the public interest, which was been espoused in the present proceeding, will not be served by terminating the contract of the applicant/respondent No. 7, and rather, it would cause more harm to the public interest; and within 31st July, 2024, the applicant has programmed to execute major portion of the work and that termination will cause huge loss to the working period, the plant and machineries, as well as the manpower of the applicant, and the applicant would become idle; and that, as per the estimate/scheduled program, the entire work of the flyover can be completed within the outer limit of 31.03.2027, and this does not mean that the applicant is seeking extension at this stage, till 31.03.2027; and therefore, Mr. Dubey submits that the applicant/respondent No.7 may be allowed to work till 31.07.2026, as per the extension of time granted and extending upon its performance, the authorities can consider as to whether, in terms of the contract, the applicant would be entitled for further extension of time or not. Page No.# 8/11 2.5 Mr. Dubey, also submits that there was lapse on the part of the State respondents in handing over the land for construction of the flyover and the road and also, in respect of payment of arrear bills and unless, the bills are paid in time, the applicant is not in a position to execute the work; and since, time has been granted till 31.07.2026, the applicant/respondent No. 7 may be allowed to continue his work till then. 3. Mr. D. Panging, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 submits that since, this is PIL, the petitioner is no longer required to file any response and by bringing the public cause to the notice of this Court, the petition has done its job. 4. Per contra, Mr. Ratan, learned Additional Advocate General for the opposite party Nos. 3, 4 & 5, submits that the State respondents have filed written objection against the interlocutory application. Referring to the Order of this Court, dated 24.12.2025; submits that in the said order, this Court was pleased to direct that no further extension, beyond 31.07.2026; shall be granted, as a matter of course and further, referring to the Order, dated 11.02.2026, he submits that this Court has categorically made a observation that to a specific query made to the learned counsel for the Department and also, Mr. R. Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent No. 7, a response has been given that it would be practically impossible to complete the work by extending the deadline, till 31.07.2026 and vide said order and also considering the importance of the matter, which got immense public interest; this Court had granted the department liberty to take further steps for timely completion of work by ensuring that the standard is maintained. He further submits that the Chief Engineer, Highway Division, PWD, Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, vide letter, dated 13.02.2026, has notified the applicant/respondent No. 7; about the intention to Page No.# 9/11 terminate, under Clause 23.1 (ii) of the EPC Contract Agreement, in respect of 4-Laning of Itanagar to Banderdewa Section of NH-415; and that since, it would be practically not possible to complete the project within the deadline of 31.07.2026, and also, in view of the immense public interest involved in the project; allowing the applicant to continue the work till 31.07.2026, would not espouse the public interest and under such circumstances, the Department is under obligation to complete the project as soon as practicable and with a view to achieve the same, it has issued termination notice and therefore, he has contended to dismiss this application. 5. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent/opposite parties also subscribed the submission of Mr. Ratan. 6. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for both the parties, we have carefully gone through the application and documents placed on record and also, perused the orders, passed by this Court on 24.12.2025, 22.01.2026 and 11.02.2026; and the written objection filed by the opposite party/respondent Nos. 3, 4 & 5. 7. It appears that on 11.02.2026, to a specific query put to the learned counsel for the Department and to Mr. R. Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent No. 7; a response has been given that it would be practically impossible to complete the work by the extended deadline, on 31.07.2026 and, vide said order, liberty was also granted to the Department to take further steps for timely completion of the work, by ensuring that the standards are maintained. And it appears that pursuant to the said order of granting liberty to the Department, the Department has issued notice to the applicant herein, notifying the intention to terminate the contract, under Clause 23.1 (ii) of the Page No.# 10/11 EPC Contract Agreement. 8. We have also taken note of the fact that the contract was awarded to the applicant on 26.11.2020, and the completion period was 36 months, ending on 07.12.2024; and the same has been extended till 31.07.2026, by an order of this Court. 9. Further, we have taken note of the fact, from the order, dated 24.12.2025, that as on 24.12.2025; the physical progress was about 48.32% and financial progress was about 45.36%; and that 85 pillars, out of 149 pillars, had been erected till then, i.e., 24.12.2025. And, from the cumulative physical progress report, with effect from April 2025 to February 2026, as reflected in the para No. 20, of the objection, filed by the State respondent/opposite parties; indicates that cumulative physical progress is only 50.63% and the financial progress is 46.92%; and in the remark column, it is reflected that the progress is critically slow. This being the position, by no stretch of imagination, it can be expected that the work will be completed within the extended period, i.e., 31.07.2026; unless any miracle happens. And this fact is also apparent from the candid statement made by the learned counsel for the Department and also by the learned counsel for the applicant/respondent No. 7, that it would be practically impossible to complete the work within the extended deadline, on 31.07.2026. 10. We have also taken note of the submission made by Mr. Dubey, in respect of the difficulties in timely completion of the project and having weighed the same against public interest involved in the project; and the balance is found to be tilted in favour of the latter. Moreover, from the statement made in the para No. 7 of the objection, it appears that the applicant has already invoked the arbitration clause of the agreement and instituted an arbitration proceeding, Page No.# 11/11 being Arbitration No. 1/2026, before the Court of the learned District Judge, Yupia; and vide order, dated 05.03.2026, the learned District Judge, Yupia, has granted interim relief to the applicant, by restraining the respondent authorities from terminating the contract and encashing the bank guarantee, dated 23.12.2020; for an amount of Rs. 5,12,60,000/-, or regarding payment of bill and other issues, any coercive measures, till returnable date. Thus, his grievance will be addressed in the said proceeding. Such issues cannot be addressed in this PIL. 11. We are of the view that the paramount consideration at this stage, is the completion of the project as soon as practicable, otherwise, public interest will be seriously prejudiced. If, in view of the liberty granted by this Court, to the respondent authorities, to take such steps for early completion of the project, vide order, dated 11.02.2026; and if the authority has decided to terminate the contract with the applicant herein, to take further such action, which will enable the State respondent to complete the project early, then there is no question of granting further time to the applicant up to 31.07.2026; to complete the work, which, in the own words of the applicant, is virtually impracticable and as such, we are of the considered opinion that it would not serve the public interest. 12. In that view of the matter, we find this interlocutory application devoid of merit and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant