Decided on May 10,2018

T Gangkak Enterprise Appellant
State Of Arunachal Pradesh And 5 Ors Respondents


Kalyan Rai Surana, J. - (1.) Heard Mr. K. Jini, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.H. Nabam, the learned Addl. Advocate General for the State, assisted by Ms. Pubi Pangu, learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State respondents No. 1 to 5 as well as Mr. N. Ratan, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 6.
(2.) By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) No. SEA/AD/Tender/2017-218 dated 06.11.2017 for construction of Circuit House in Aalo, West Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh (Phase-II: 1st Floor and completion of Basement and Ground Floor).
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner firm was awarded the tender for "Infrastructure Development of Aalo Township in West Siang District, A.P. (SH: RCC Triple-storied Circuit House with Administrative Block i/c. Landscaping, Compound Wall, Approach Road and Protection Wall (PH-I: Basement and Ground Floor and Landscaping). After completion of all formalities, the petitioner and the concerned State respondent authority had entered into a Contract Agreement dated 30.03.2013 in respect of the said work. It is submitted that in course of work, the petitioner had to do some extra work and, as such, the petitioner was expecting that the competent authority would prepare a revised estimate for the extra work done by the petitioner by way of deviation. It is submitted that as per the joint verification report, the extra work done by the petitioner was acknowledged and admitted by the respondents No.1 to 5. It is stated that the said authorities have not cleared the bills of the petitioner, but all of the sudden the petitioner had come to know that without following the due procedure as prescribed in the Public Works Department Manual, the State respondents had floated a NIT for the same work, but projecting as if the work was under Phase-II, which clearly showed that there was a definite over lapping of the work that was within the scope of the tender awarded to the petitioner, which, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner was a gross irregularity and called for a due enquiry by this Court. It is submitted that aggrieved by various irregularities and anomalies, the petitioner served a legal notice to the respondent authorities and, as such, by realizing their mistake, the said tender was cancelled. However, once again without any information to the petitioner, by once again flouting the requirements prescribed under the Public Works Department Manual, the respondents once again advertised another NIT for Phase-II, which was once again the overlapping of the work already allotted to the petitioner.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.