Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 6692 (GAU)

M/s Loffa Construction Agency v. M/s Khenewa Group and 4 Ors

IA(C)/109/2026 · 2026-05-24

Kardak Ete

Writ Petition (Civil)body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC040007382026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : IA(C)/109/2026 M/s Loffa Construction Agency having its office at Loffa Village, PO and PS Seppa, East Kameng District, Arunachal Pradesh represented by its proprietor Shri Rali Yangda, Son of Late Takar Yangda, Loffa Village, PO and PS Seppa, East Kameng District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS M/s Khenewa Group and 4 Ors having its office at A Sector, Naharlagun, Papum Pare District, PO and PS Naharlagun, Arunachal Pradesh, represented by its proprietor Shri Rumak Jomoh, Son of Shri Sam Jamoh, Village Jomo, PO Khenewa, PS Seppa, East Kameng District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2:The State of Arunachal Pradesh Age: 0 Occupation : represented by the Secretary Public Works Department Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar PO an PS Itanagar. 3:The Commissioner Age: 0 Occupation : Public Works Department Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 4:The Chief Engineer Age: 0 Occupation : Public Works Department Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. Page No.# 2/3 5:The Executive Engineer Age: 0 Occupation : Public Works Department Division Bameng East Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : Taba Tagum, Tassar Tato,Likha Tabin,Rage Koyu Advocate for the Respondent : Hage Lampu, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE ORDER Date : 25.05.2026 Heard Mr. T. Tagum, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. H. Lampu, learned counsel for the opposite party/respondent No.1 and Ms. T. Wangmo, learned State Counsel for the State respondents No.2 to 5. This is an application praying for impleadment of the applicant as a party respondent No.5 in the connected writ petition, being WP(C) No.130(AP)/2026. The writ petitioner/opposite party No.1 in the connected writ petition, being WP(C) No.130(AP)/2026, has challenged the tender process initiated by the Executive Engineer, PWD Division, Bameng, East Kameng District, pursuant to the Invitation for Bid (IFB) dated 20.03.2026, in connection with the project namely, “Integrated Development of Various Administrative Infrastructure at Newly Created Sijingwa CO Headquarters, East Kameng District, Arunachal Pradesh (C/o CO Office Building, BDO Office, CO Residential Building, Type-II Quarters, Type-III Quarters, Type-IV Quarters, Bachelor Barracks and Community Playfield)”, having an estimated cost of Rs. 2970.00 lakhs. Page No.# 3/3 It is submitted by Mr. Tagum, learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has also participated in the aforesaid tender process and, therefore, is a necessary party in the connected writ petition. Accordingly, he prays for impleadment of the applicant in the aforesaid writ petition. Having considered that the tender process was initiated by the respondent authorities pursuant to the Invitation for Bid dated 20.03.2026, and the applicant is stated to have participated in the said tender process, I am of the considered view that the applicant would be a necessary party in the connected writ petition, being WP(C) No.130(AP)/2026. Thus, the applicant is required to be impleaded in the connected writ petition. Accordingly, the applicant is allowed to be impleaded as respondent No.5 in the connected writ petition. The I.A. stands allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant