Page No.# 1/19 GAHC040000182026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WA/1/2026 The State of AP and 4 Ors represented by the Commissioner/ Secretary (PWD), Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar. 2: The Chief Engineer (WZ) Age: Occupation : PWD Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 3: The Superintending Engineer Age: Occupation : PWD Capital Circle Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 4: The Executive Engineer Age: Occupation : Doimukh Division PWD Papum Pare District Govt of Arunachal Pradesh. 5: The Assistant Engineer Age: Occupation : Balijan Sub Division PWD Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh Page No.# 2/19 VERSUS M/s Bhimji Velji Sorathia Construction Pvt Ltd and Anr Plot No.112-113, Arbuda Nagar, Opposite PITMANS, Tagor Road, Gujarat represented by its Director, Shri Ramesh Bhimji Hadiya, resident of Plot No.112, Arbuda Nagar Adipur, Kutch, Gujarat 370205 2:Tai Tajik Age: 0 Occupation : General Manager(Contract) Son of Late Tai Taa PO and PS Sangram Kurung Kumey District Arunachal Pradesh authorized signatory of M/s Bhimji Velji Sorathia Construction Pvt Ltd Advocate for the Petitioner : GA (AP), GA (AP) Advocate for the Respondent : Gamken Bam, Linked Case : WA/2/2026 The State of AP and 4 Ors Age: 0 Occupation : Address:represented by the Commissioner/ Secretary (PWD) Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 2: The Chief Engineer (WZ) Age: 0 Occupation : Address:PWD Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 3: The Superintending Engineer Age: 0 Occupation : Address:PWD Capital Circle Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. Page No.# 3/19 4: The Executive Engineer Age: 0 Occupation : Address:Doimukh Division PWD Papum Pare District Govt of Arunachal Pradesh. 5: The Assistant Engineer Age: 0 Occupation : Address:Balijan Sub Division PWD Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS M/s Bhimji Velji Sorathia Construction Pvt Ltd and Anr Age: 0 Occupation : Address:Plot No.112-113 Arbuda Nagar Opposite PITMANS Tagor Road Gujarat represented by its Director Shri Ramesh Bhimji Hadiya resident of Plot No.112 Arbuda Nagar Adipur Kutch Gujarat 370205 2:Tai Tajik Age: 0 Occupation : Address:General Manager(Contract) Son of Late Tai Taa PO and PS Sangram Kurung Kumey District Arunachal Pradesh authorized signatory of M/s Bhimji Velji Sorathia Construction Pvt Ltd. ------------ Advocate for : GA (AP) Advocate for : Gamken Bam appearing for M/s Bhimji Velji Sorathia Construction Pvt Ltd and Anr: Advocate , appearing for 2, respectively. Page No.# 4/19 B E F O R E HO'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA Advocates for the Appellants : Shri Mr. Subu Tapin, G.A., A.P. Advocates for the respondents : Shri A. Dasgupta, Sr. Advocate & Shri S. Dutta, Advocate. Date on which judgment is reserved : 02.06.2026. Date of pronouncement of judgment : 05.06.2026. Whether the pronouncement is of the operative part of the judgment? : NA Whether the full judgment has been pronounced? : Yes Judgment & Order (S.K. Medhi, J.) The present intra-court appeals have been preferred by the State of Arunachal Pradesh against a common judgement and order dated 18.12.2025 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C)/219/2025 and WP(C)/346/2025 whereby, both the writ petitions filed by the same petitioner were allowed. 2. As per the facts projected and deciphered from the materials in the writ proceedings, the issue is with regard to a work of construction of 6 nos. of bridges. There is, however a chequered history in the litigation. Initially, a work of construction and widening of the National Highway from Itanagar to Jote Road was allowed to the writ petitioner for which, an agreement was entered into on 10.11.2021. The work was completed on 31.03.2024. However, after about 4 months from the completion, the local MLA had issued a D.O. letter dated 24.07.2024 requesting for construction of 6 nos. of bridges over the said road. It was also requested that the work could be Page No.# 5/19 done by the writ petitioner. Upon receipt of the said letter, the Public Works Department (P.W.D) issued an intra-office letter on 31.07.2024 communicating the proposal of the MLA and further communications were exchanged. The matter went up to the level of the Chief Minister, who vide an endorsement dated 17.09.2024 had given the approval. On 23.09.2024, on the subject of allotment of additional work of 6 nos. of bridges to the petitioner, the petitioner was directed to carry out sub-soil investigation. It is the case of the petitioner that such communications would clearly convey the intention to allot the work of construction of the 6 nos. of bridges to the petitioner. Subsequently, the Assistant Engineer, P.W.D. had written to the petitioner a letter dated 20.11.2024 directing them to dismantle the existing bridges which were in dilapidated condition. The Chief Engineer, P.W.D., however had issued a communication dated 21.01.2025 to the Executive Engineer bringing into notice the unauthorised construction. Further communication was issued to stop any unauthorised construction. The same was followed by a communication dated 29.03.2025 by the Executive Engineer to the petitioner whereby the petitioner informed that while there would be no restriction for construction of the two bridges at Dokoso Nallah and Gara Nallah which the petitioner was already constructing, the remaining 4 nos. of bridges would be constructed by calling for tenders. It is the aforesaid actions which are the subject matter of challenge in the two writ petitions. To be specific, the petitioner had instituted WP(C)/346/2025 impugning two communications dated 21.01.2025 and 21.02.2025 and thereafter WP(C)/219/2025 was filed challenging the communications dated 29.03.2025 and 24.04.2025. 3. The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties was of the view that when the approval of the Chief Minister was obtained for carrying out the works, the impugned letter could not have been issued at the level of the Chief Engineer. It has also been held that the same has to be done by a conscious decision of the competent authority. Both the writ petitions were accordingly allowed vide the impugned judgement and order dated 18.12.2015 which is the subject matter of challenge in the Page No.# 6/19 present appeals. 4. We have heard Shri Subu Tapin, learned Sr. Govt. Advocate, A.P. for the appellants-State. We have also heard Shri A. Dasgupta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri S. Dutta, learned counsel for the writ petitioner. 5. Shri Tapin, learned Sr. Govt. Advocate, A.P. has submitted that the learned Single Judge, while allowing the two aforesaid writ petitions had overlooked the aspect and principles which govern the law relating to distribution of State largesse. He has submitted that the earlier work was only for the construction and widening of the road from Itanagar to Jote and the same was completed on 31.03.2024. He has highlighted that after about four months from the said completion, the DO letter was issued by the local MLA on 24.07.2024 to construct the 6 nos. of bridges over the said road and to see if the same could be done by the writ petitioner. He has submitted that though there were certain communications, those are only with the respect of completing the formalities, including the aspect of soil testing, preparing the Detail Project Report, (DPR), floating of tenders and thereafter allot the work to the suitable bidder in accordance with law. He has submitted that the estimate involved in the present work would be around ₹ 80 crores whereas, the earlier work for the road was about ₹ 60 crores and therefore, by no stretch of imagination, the work of construction of the 6 nos. of bridges can be treated to be an extension of the earlier work. He has submitted that the office notes would clearly show that though the authorities, at the initial stage had envisaged the same to be a consolidated project, due to certain factors including finance, the construction and widening of the roads were decided to be done first. He has submitted that so far as the preliminary work of dismantling the existing bridges is concerned, the petitioner was engaged which, however would not give any right to the petitioner to claim the work for construction of the new bridges without calling for any tenders. He has submitted that under the General Financial Rules of 2017, the principles governing allotment of works have been clearly laid down. He has specifically referred to Rule 132 and 136 which are extracted Page No.# 7/19 hereinbelow: “Rule 132. Powers to sanction works. The powers delegated to various subordinate authorities to accord administrative approval, sanction expenditure and re- appropriate funds for works are regulated by the Delegation of Financial Powers Rules, and other orders contained in the respective departmental regulations. Rule 136. (1) No works shall be commenced or inability incurred in connection with it until: i) administrative approval has been obtained from the appropriate authority in each case. ii) sanction to incur expenditure has been obtained from the competent authority. iii) a properly detailed design has been sanctioned; while designing the projects etc., principles of Life Cycle cost may also be considered. iv) estimates containing the detailed specifications and quantities of various items have been prepared on the basis of the Schedule of Rates maintained by CPWD or other Public Works Organisations and sanctioned. (v) funds to cover the charge during the year have been provided by competent authority. (vi) tenders invited and processed in accordance with rules. (vii) a Work Order issued. Rule 136 (2) On grounds of urgency or otherwise, if it becomes necessary to carry out a work or incur a liability under circumstances when the provisions set out under sub rule 1 of rule 136 cannot be complied with, the concerned executive officer may do so on his own judgement and responsibility. Simultaneously, he should initiate action to obtain approval from the competent authority and also to intimate the concerned Accounts Officer. Rule 136 (3) Any department of a project considered necessary while a work is in progress, which is not contingent on the execution of work as first sanctioned, shall have to be covered by a supplementary estimate.” Page No.# 8/19 6. He has submitted that the aforesaid General Financial Rules took into consideration the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nagar Nigam, Meerut Vs. Al Faheem Meat Exports (P) Ltd. & Ors., reported in (2006) 13 SCC 382 and the aforesaid principles are extracted hereinbelow: “13. This Court time and again has emphasised the need to maintain transparency in grant of public contracts. Ordinarily, maintenance of transparency as also compliance with Article 14 of the Constitution would inter alia be ensured by holding public auction upon issuance of advertisement in the well-known newspapers. That has not been done in this case. Although the Nagar Nigam had advertised the contract, the High Court has directed that it should be given for 10 years to a particular party (Respondent 1). This was clearly illegal. 14. It is well settled that ordinarily the State or its instrumentalities should not give contracts by private negotiation but by open public auction/tender after wide publicity. In this case the contract has not only been given by way of private negotiation, but the negotiation has been carried out by the High Court itself, which is impermissible. 15. We have no doubt that in rare and exceptional cases, having regard to the nature of the trade or largesse or for some other good reason, a contract may have to be granted by private negotiation, but normally that should not be done as it shakes the public confidence. 16. The law is well settled that contracts by the State, its corporations, instrumentalities and agencies must be normally granted through public auction/public tender by inviting tenders from eligible persons and the notification of the public auction or inviting tenders should be advertised in well-known dailies having wide circulation in the locality with all relevant details such as date, time and place of auction, subject-matter of auction, technical specifications, estimated cost, earnest money deposit, etc. The award of government contracts through public auction/public tender is to ensure transparency in the public procurement, to maximise economy and efficiency in government procurement, to promote Page No.# 9/19 healthy competition among the tenderers, to provide for fair and equitable treatment of all tenderers, and to eliminate irregularities, interference and corrupt practices by the authorities concerned. This is required by Article 14 of the Constitution. However, in rare and exceptional cases, for instance during natural calamities and emergencies declared by the Government; where the procurement is possible from a single source only; where the supplier or contractor has exclusive rights in respect of the goods or services and no reasonable alternative or substitute exists; where the auction was held on several dates but there were no bidders or the bids offered were too low, etc., this normal rule may be departed from and such contracts may be awarded through “private negotiations”. (See Ram and Shyam Co. v. State of Haryana [(1985) 3 SCC 267: AIR 1985 SC 1147]) 17. In Sachidanand Pandey v. State of W.B. [(1987) 2 SCC 295 : AIR 1987 SC 1109] , AIR at p. 1133, O. Chinnappa Reddy, J. after considering almost all the decisions of the Court on the subject summarised the legal propositions in the following terms: ‘40. On a consideration of the relevant cases cited at the Bar the following propositions may be taken as well established: State-owned or public-owned property is not to be dealt with at the absolute discretion of the executive. Certain precepts and principles have to be observed. Public interest is the paramount consideration. One of the methods of securing the public interest, when it is considered necessary to dispose of a property, is to sell the property by public auction or by inviting tenders. Though that is the ordinary rule, it is not an invariable rule. There may be situations where there are compelling reasons necessitating departure from the rule but then the reasons for the departure must be rational and should not be suggestive of discrimination. Appearance of public justice is as important as doing justice. Nothing should be done which gives an appearance of bias, jobbery or nepotism.’ ‘14. The public property owned by the State or by any instrumentality of the State should be generally sold by public auction or by inviting tenders. This Court has been insisting upon that rule, not only to get the Page No.# 10/19 highest price for the property but also to ensure fairness in the activities of the State and public authorities. They should undoubtedly act fairly. Their actions should be legitimate. Their dealings should be aboveboard. Their transactions should be without aversion or affection. Nothing should be suggestive of discrimination. Nothing should be done by them which gives an impression of bias, favouritism or nepotism. Ordinarily these factors would be absent if the matter is brought to public auction or sale by tenders. That is why the court repeatedly stated and reiterated that the State-owned properties are required to be disposed of publicly. But that is not the only rule. As O. Chinnappa Reddy, J. observed, ‘that though that is the ordinary rule, it is not an invariable rule’. There may be situations necessitating departure from the rule, but then such instances must be justified by compulsions and not by compromise. It must be justified by compelling reasons and not by just convenience.’ 18. The law is, thus, clear that ordinarily all contracts by the Government or by an instrumentality of the State should be granted only by public auction or by inviting tenders, after advertising the same in well-known newspapers having wide circulation, so that all eligible persons will have an opportunity to bid in the bid (sic auction), and there is total transparency. In our opinion this is an essential requirement in a democracy, where the people are supreme, and all official acts must be actuated by the public interest, and should inspire public confidence.” 7. He has submitted that the requirement of law is to ensure transparency and fairness in matters pertaining to distribution of state largesse and the present work for construction of the 6 nos. of bridges is a major work which would involve huge expenditure to the tune of more than ₹ 80 crores. He has submitted that the State had filed detailed affidavit-in-opposition in which, all the aforesaid facts were brought on record. However, unfortunately, the learned Single Judge did not even discuss or address the stand of the State. He has submitted that the authority to decide is the Cabinet Sub-Committee which cannot be replaced by the Chief Minister. 8. The learned State Counsel has submitted that 11.03.2025 is a very crucial date Page No.# 11/19 in which, the Finance Department, while giving the concurrence, has clearly laid down that the works have to be done by means of tender which is mandatory. However, on the said date, the Administrative Department had given the approval, and under Clause 12, it has been stated that the work would be treated to be an extended tender. The learned State Counsel has submitted that such approval by the administrative department i.e., P.W.D. has mentioned that the same was done in concurrence with the Finance Department’s approval dated 11.03.2025. He has submitted that P.W.D. had clearly overlooked the remarks of the Finance Department in paragraph 12 which reads as follows: “12. The execution of works/schemes/projects and procurement of items/materials, furniture etc. should be done strictly as per the provisions of GFR, DFPR , CPWD Manual etc. All the financial Rules and Regulations, the guidelines and directives issued by Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance, GoI/ Administrative Ministry of GoI,-CVC and Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh in this regard from time to time should be followed in letter and spirit without fall. The process of tendering and competitive bidding should mandatorily be followed and complied with as envisaged in the GFR, DFPR, Financial Rules and Regulations and the conditions guidelines, Circulars and directives issued/prescribed by Govt. of India, CVC and Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh in this regard .” 9. The learned State Counsel has submitted that when the aforesaid matter had come to light on 21.03.2025, a corrigendum was issued whereby the administrative approval 11.03.2025 which was signed on 18.03.2025 was cancelled and subsequently, a sanction order was issued whereby there was a requirement of tendering and competitive bidding. The same was followed by the communication dated 29.03.2025 whereby the Administrative Department, by taking into consideration that so far as two bridges are concerned, namely, Dokoso Nallah and Gara Nallah, as the petitioner was already executing and sufficient progress was made, the same would be continued to be done by the petitioner whereas, the Page No.# 12/19 remaining four bridges would be done by tender process. He has submitted that no wrong or fault can be attributed to the aforesaid decision and this aspect, was not appreciated by the Hon’ble Single Judge. He submits that in view of the above, the writ appeal is liable to be allowed and the impugned judgment dated 18.12.2025 is liable to be interfered with and impugned communication dated 29.03.2025 be upheld. 10. Per contra, Shri Dasgupta, learned Senior Counsel for the opposite party/ writ petitioner has submitted that when the highest authority of the State, namely, the Chief Minister had given the approval, that would mean the decision to allot the work of construction of the 6 nos. of bridges to the writ petitioner had attained finality. He has submitted that in the instant case, the Cabinet Sub-Committee which consisted of 3 persons where the Chief Minister was also holding the P.W.D. portfolio, the approval of the Chief Minister has to be construed to be a decision of the Cabinet Sub- Committee. He has submitted that the Administrative Department had clearly given the approval on 11.03.2025 that the work has to be treated as an extended tender and such approval was given after the concurrence of the Chief Minister who is the highest executive. By drawing the attention of this Court to the CPWD Manual, the learned Senior Counsel has submitted that under Clause 1.5, there is the aspect of works of inescapable nature. He has submitted that the present work of construction of the 6 nos. of bridges would fall under the aforesaid clause, as admittedly, the bridges were in dilapidated condition requiring immediate replacement. He has submitted that under the peculiar facts and circumstances, the Administrative Department had taken a conscious decision to treat the aspect as extended tender. The learned Senior Counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to the Rules of Executive Business and Rule 21 has been pressed into service. He has submitted that for any change in the decision, Clause 17 of the Schedule is required to be followed. He has submitted that proposal to vary or reverse a decision previously taken by the Cabinet has to be done in accordance with the said Rules. He has also submitted that the Chief Engineer, vide the communication data 25.03.2025 has accorded technical Page No.# 13/19 sanction. 11. The learned Senior Counsel has relied upon the decision of MRF Limited Vs. Manohar Parikar & Ors., reported in (2010) 11 SCC 374 and has submitted that under Article 298 of the Constitution of India, the aspect of Executive Powers have been explained. He has submitted that Article 298 of the Constitution of India deals with the Executive Powers. Reference has also been made to Article 154 of the Constitution of India which is to be exercised by the Governor and Article 163 wherein, the aspect of taking the aid and advice of the Council of Minister has been stated. He has also referred to Article 166 in which, there are three parts with regard to the conduct of business of the Government. He has submitted that to facilitate the functioning of the Government and for exercising executive powers, Article 166 has been framed. In this regard, the learned Senior Counsel has relied upon the case of Samsher Singh Vs. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1974 SC 219 which deals with the powers of the Governor. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to the Rules of Executive Business of the State and relied upon the definition of Council in Rule 2(f). He has submitted that Cabinet has been defined under Rule 2(b). 12. The learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the original project was of an amount of ₹ 153.97 crores. However, the bridge component had to be delinked as it was not possible to go ahead in one go and therefore, the project was reduced to ₹ 89.52 crores. He has submitted that on 19.09.2024, the competent authority had given the approval and therefore, the impugned decision is unsustainable in law which has been rightly interfered with by the learned Single Judge. 13. The learned State Counsel in his rejoinder has submitted that the proposal was placed before the Cabinet Sub-Committee and there was no approval as such that the work has to be done by the petitioner. He has submitted that the approval by the Administrative Department (P.W.D.) was given erroneously and by overlooking the condition imposed by the Finance Department which are in the concurrence order Page No.# 14/19 dated 11.03.2025. He has submitted that the corrigendum dated 21.03.2025 is only a step for correcting an error which is apparent. He has submitted that an error cannot give any indefeasible right to any individual, more so when such error is apparently in violation of the settled principles of law. 14. The rival submissions have been duly considered and the materials on records have been carefully examined. 15. From the pleadings exchanged and the arguments advanced, it clearly appears that the State’s version which is on appeal is that there was an approval by the Administrative Department for getting the works of 6 nos. bridges done by the writ petitioner by considering the same as an extended tender and the said approval was apparently given by ignoring/overlooking the concurrence of the Finance Depart dated 11.03.2025. On the other hand, the emphasis of the learned Senior Counsel for the opposite party/ writ petitioner is that all necessary procedures were followed, including the exercise of power through delegation and the approval by the highest authority, namely, the Chief Minister. While considering the rival submissions, this court cannot overlook the aspect that the work in question is a major one involving an amount of more than ₹80 crores. It appears that due to certain communications, the petitioner had presumed that the work of construction of the 6 nos. of bridges would be allotted to it and accordingly started the execution of construction of 2 nos. of bridges at Dokoso Nallah and Gara Nallah. We have also noted that some idea in the direction can also be gathered from the communication dated 20.11.2024 issued by the Assistant Engineer, P.W.D. whereby, the writ petitioner was directed to dismantle the existing bridges. 16. While the writ petitioner has emphasised the aspect of works being of inescapable nature, we are of the view that the present work would not come within the definition of work of “inescapable nature” which is, otherwise required to be objectively assessed by a Certificate from the competent authority as laid down in Page No.# 15/19 Clause 1.5 of the C.P.W.D. Manual. At this juncture, it would be necessary to refer to the aforesaid clause which will clarify the entire issue: “1.5. Works of Inescapable Nature (1) Emergent works Various works of inescapable nature can be classified as under: These are emergency works which arise all of sudden and are of inescapable nature requiring immediate action that cannot brook any delay like: (i) Natural calamities like Earthquakes, Blizzards, Hurricanes/ Lightening, Tornados Tsunami waves, Floods. (ii) Other causes like Explosions/Arson, Fire, War, Sudden collapse of building/bridge Terrorist attack, Mass strike affecting civic services such as water sewer and power supply, Spread of epidemic, works required for maintaining law and order. (iii) Restoration of essential services in case of accidents/ break down etc. (iv) Ceremonial functions at the time of death of President/Ex President, Vice President Ex Vice President and Prime Minister/Ex Prime Minister. (v) Restoration of services in Parliament, President/ Vice President House/ Prime Minister House, Prime Minister's Office, Hyderabad House, National Security Council Secretariat and other Buildings of National importance and prestige. (vi) Works ordered by OSD/PS to PM, OSD to Dy. PM and Vice President Secretariat to be executed by CPWD within a specific time. frame (vii) Works on a specific reference from the Secretariat to the President of India. (viii) Critical Hospital services works on the requisition from Medical Supdt. or equivalent. (ix) Works on the specific reference from Chief of Protocol, Min. of External Affairs or on his behalf for Hyderabad House, New Delhi. Page No.# 16/19 (X) Any other work, apart from the above, declared as Emergent by the CE or the next authority if there is no CE. (xi) To ensure-, transparency and uniformity while declaring the works emergent, the Competent Authority i.e. CE/ADG/SDG should record a certificate that: (a) The work has arisen all of sudden. (b) The work is of inescapable nature requiring immediate action that cannot brook any delay. The Competent Authority while declaring any work as emergent may also decide the mode of calling quotations i.e. whether spot or through e-tender portal duly supported with reasons. (xii) Details of works awarded on the basis of spot quotation should be compiled by each circle/zone (SE/CE) on quarterly basis and submitted to ADG/SDG. The Engineer in Charge as per his competence shall proceed to carry out the necessary work and shall immediately intimate PAO concerned that such liability is being incurred with approximate amount of liability. The competent officer should initiate action for the AA & E/S and accord of T/S (if applicable) to regularize the liability. Such emergent works can be executed without call of tenders by issuing work order or on hand receipt after collecting spot quotations as per delegation of powers given in "Financial Powers Delegated to CPWD Officers", Spot quotations shall be collected by officers not below the level of AE/AEE. (Normal works which require compressed schedule for completion/early start should not be considered as Emergent works) (2) Urgent Works: (i) The urgent works need not to be treated at par with the works to be taken up Page No.# 17/19 under emergency situations. These are works which require early start/completion within compressed schedule and are to be taken up on topmost priority at the instructions of competent authority or on specific request of the user department. Under these situations availability of funds needs to be ensured before taking up execution of such works Engineer-in-Charge shall be responsible for assessing the urgency of the work. Normally, unless situation warrants otherwise, work orders shall be placed after open call o quotations with publicity through web for works upto Rs 5 lacs. Quotations for works with estimated cost more than Rs. 5 lacs shall be invited through e-tendering platform. In case of exigencies, with recorded reasons, the urgent work may be executed by collecting spot quotations as per delegation in "Financial Powers Delegated to CPWD Officers". In case of Deposit works, urgent works can be taken up on written request o1 the client. (ii) Details of urgent works should be compiled by each circle/ zone (SE/ CE) on quarterly basis and submitted to ADG/ SDG for review.” 17. As noted above, only in very exceptional circumstances, works can be done on the basis of spot quotation and the CPWD Manual itself makes it clear that to ensure transparency and uniformity, the aspect has to be certified by a competent authority, including the finding that the work is of inescapable nature requiring immediate action that cannot brook any delay. Even then, there is a requirement to come to a conclusion whether quotations can be called on the spot or through e-Tender Portal which is to be supported by reasons. 18. We are of the view that such riders have been attached only to ensure that there is fairness and transparency. In the instant case, admittedly, there is no such Certificate. 19. We also find force in the contention advanced by the learned State Counsel that for urgency clause, there has to be a collapse of a bridge. He has submitted the preconditions which are laid down in Clause 1.5 of the CPWD Manual are missing. We also find force in his contention that Clause 21 of the Rules of Executive Business will Page No.# 18/19 not have any application. 20. While the learned Single Judge has agreed with the proposition advanced by the petitioner and had interfered with the impugned action, we are of the opinion that main issue which is connected with the present case is whether the principle of law relating to distribution of State largesse has been followed or not and this issue has not been addressed or answered. 21. While it is not in dispute that the petitioner had successfully executed the work of construction and widening of the road from Itanagar to Jote, the present work of construction of 6 nos. of bridges, though may be connected to the original work of the road, cannot be said to be a part of the initial tender process and therefore, could not have been given the status of an “extended tender”. Emphasis, all along by a catena of judicial pronouncements is that transparency and fairness would have to be maintained in all matters connected to distribution of State largesse. In fact, the aspect of transparency and fairness are the hallmark of a robust democratic process where equality before the law has to be maintained. We are of the opinion that when the work is of such magnitude of more than ₹80 crores, allotting the said works to the petitioner without a tender system would be against the very principles of the law relating to distribution of State largesse. We have also noted that under peculiar facts and circumstances, vide the impugned order, 2 out of the 6 nos. of bridges have been kept outside the purview of the tendering process as the petitioner has, in the meantime, executed and almost completed the same. We are of the view that the administrative approval given by the P.W.D. by overlooking the conditions imposed by the Finance Department requiring calling for tenders is not sustainable in law. 22. At this stage, the learned Senior Counsel for writ petitioner has submitted that even for the remaining 4 nos. of other works, sufficient progress has been done by the writ petitioner. While this Court would not give a stamp of approval towards any such works done, by balancing the equities, it is directed that if at all, any work has been Page No.# 19/19 done by the writ petitioner, it would be entitled for the payment. We make it clear that the construction of the remaining 4 nos. of bridges is to be done by floating of tenders and strictly in accordance with law. 23. Both the writ appeals accordingly stand allowed in the manner indicated above. Consequently, the judgment and order dated 18.12.2025 passed in WP(C)/219/2025 and WP(C)/346/2025 is interfered with and set aside. The writ petitions stand dismissed. 24. No order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant