Page No.# 1/5 GAHC040004182026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/124/2026 M/s Nirmang Associates represented by its proprietor Shri Pema Chowang, resident of Gyangkhar Village, PO, PS and District Tawang, Arunachal Pradesh 790104 VERSUS The State of AP and 3 Ors represented by the Chief Secretary, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, 1st Floor, Block I, Civil Secretariat, Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh. 791111 2:The Secretary Age: 0 Occupation : Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Public Works Department Itanagar Arunachal Pradesh 791111 3:The Chief Engineer (CSQ) Age: 0 Occupation : Public Works Department Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar Arunachal Pradesh 791111 4:The Executive Engineer Age: 0 Occupation : Public Works Department Tawang Division Tawang Tawang District Page No.# 2/5 Arunachal Pradesh 79010 Advocate for the Petitioner : Parswajyoti Das Nair, Dejum Tally,Techi Topu,Jambey Tsering Kee Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 25.03.2026 Heard Mr. P.D. Nair, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N. Ratan, learned Additional Advocate General for the State respondents. 2. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT hereinafter) No. TWD/DB-7/2025-26/140, dated 20.03.2026, issued by the Executive Engineer, PWD, Tawang Division (respondent No. 4). 3. Mr. Nair, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No. 4 has issued a common NIT for execution of 17 works, out of which, the petitioner is concerned with the NIT No. 23/2025-26/TWD/Tawang/TSD-1, for construction of Multipurpose G+2 building for the market committee of old market, Tawang, at estimated cost of Rs. 4,68,31,000/- and at earnest money of Rs. 4,68,310/- and to complete the same within a period of 24 months. 3.1. Mr. Nair, taking this Court through the Annexure No. 2, submits that the time is fixed up to 11:00 am of 25.03.2026, for filing of the bid documents and same will be opened at 11:30 am of 25.03.2026 and that sale of tenders will start from 10:00 am of 21.03.2026 and the last date for receipt of application for issue of forms will be stopped 16:00 hours, 2 days before the date of tender Page No.# 3/5 opening, inclusive of holidays. 3.2. Mr. 3.2. Mr. Nair also submits that the sealed item rate tender, in form PWD – 8, is invited under the Arunachal Pradesh District Based Entrepreneurs and Professional (Incentives, Development and Promotional) Rules, 2018, from all registered contractor in Class – IV & III categories, domiciled within the territorial jurisdiction of Assembly Constituency eligible for competitive bidding for the works. 3.3. Referring to the Schedule of the Arunachal Pradesh District Based Entrepreneurs and Professionals (Incentives, Development and Promotional) Act, 2015, Mr. Nair submits that at serial No. 5, it has been mentioned that if the cost of work is above Rs. 3 crores and up-to Rs. 8 crores, then all the registered contractors in Class – II categories domiciled within the territorial jurisdiction of Assembly Constituency will be eligible. Mr. Nair further submits that in the NIT it is mentioned that registered contractors in Class – IV & III categories will be eligible, which is in contravention of the statutory provision and as such, the impugned NIT is illegal and arbitrary. 3.4. Besides, Mr. Nair submits that as per the impugned NIT, bid document was issued w.e.f. 10:00 am of 21.03.2026, up to 11:00 am of 25.03.2026 and same will be opened at 11:30 am of 25.03.2026 and the time given for purchasing the bid documents and also to comply with other procedural requirement is grossly insufficient, as 21.03.2026 and 22.03.2026 were holidays on account of Eid and that the NIT is a tailored NIT published with a view to favour someone acquainted by the respondent authorities and that though the petitioner has purchased the bid document, he could not file the same for failing to comply with the procedural requirement. Under such circumstances, Mr. Nair has contended to interfere with the same. Page No.# 4/5 4. Per-contra, Mr. Ratan, learned Additional Advocate General for the State respondents, has produced one corrigendum, dated 21.03.2026 and on the basis of the same, he submits that the work will be awarded only to the registered contractors in Class – II category. Mr. Ratan further submits that if the other bidders could file their bid documents within time, then there is no reason as to why the petitioner could not file the same within the stipulated time. Mr. Ratan also submits that the bid documents have already been opened and interfering with the impugned NIT, at this stage, will cause serious prejudice to the respondent authorities and also to the other bidders and therefore, he has contended not to pass any interim order in this matter. 5. However, taking note of the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, Mr. Ratan was directed to receive instructions from the respondent authorities whether the date of receipt of bid documents can be extended up-to 28.03.2026. Then, on instructions, Mr. Ratan apprises this Court that though the bid documents have been opened, the respondent authorities will not proceed with the same and will extend the date of receipt of the bid documents till 28.03.2026, though it is a holiday. 6. Mr. J. Tsering, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Nair, submits that since the petitioner has already obtained the bid documents, he will file the same before the respondent authorities on or before 28.03.2026. 7. In view of the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and as agreed upon, this Court is inclined to dispose of this petition, by directing the respondent authorities to extend the date of receipt of the bid documents till 28.03.2026, though it is a holiday. 8. On such bid documents being filed by the petitioner, the respondent Page No.# 5/5 authorities shall process the same along with the bid documents of the other bidders and shall proceed to settle the same in accordance with law. 9. In terms of above, this petition stands disposed of at this motion stage itself. 10. It is, however, being clarified that under no circumstances this order shall never be read as a precedent. JUDGE Comparing Assistant