M/S Nk Enterprise and Anr v. The State of Ap and 5 Ors

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC040002822024

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WA/7/2024 M/s NK Enterprise and Anr having its registered office at Senki Park, Itanagar, PO RK Mission, PS Itanagar, Papumpare District, Arunachal Pradesh represented by Shri Lokam Peter. 2: Lokam Peter Age: Occupation VERSUS The State of AP and 5 Ors represented by the Secretary, Rural Development, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar 2:The Director Age: 0 Occupation :

3:The Joint Dircctor Age: 0 Occupation :

4:The Project Director Age: 0 Occupation :

5:The Tender Evolution Board -cum-Tender Evaluation Authority Age: 0 Occupation :

6:M/s Pacho Enterprises Age: 0 Page No.# 2/3 Occupation Advocate for the Petitioner : Dugmar Kamduk Advocate for the Respondent : Binter Picha

:: BEFORE :: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR

O R D E R

04.03.2024.

(N. U.K. Nair, J)

Heard the learned counsel Mr. D. Kamduk appearing for the appellants. Also heard Mr. B. Picha, learned counsel representing Respondent Nos.1 to 5.

¶2In view of the nature of the order that is to be passed, we deem that notice upon Respondent No.6 is not required to be issued.

¶3The intra-court appeal has been instituted by the appellants being aggrieved by the denial to him of an interim direction while issuing notice by the learned Single Judge in the connected writ petition being WP(C) No.70/2024. The learned Single Judge, while issuing notice in the connected writ petition being WP(C) No.70/2024, vide order dated 19.02.2024, had fixed the matter on 07.03.2024 and had directed the learned Standing Counsel, Rural Development Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh to place the necessary instructions in the matter on the said date before the Court.

¶4The learned counsel for the appellants has taken us to the comparative statements as prepared by the respondent authorities in the matter and we Page No.# 3/3 find that there is an apparent discrepancy in the bid value as calculated with regard to the bid of the private Respondent No.6. In the event the rates as quoted by the private Respondent No.6 is taken as it is, then the total bid value quoted by the private Respondent No.6 would come to ₹2,15,41,816.80, whereas the bid value that is being quoted by the appellants would be ₹2,13,27,346.00. However, the rate of the private Respondent No.6 was taken by the tendering authority as ₹2,13,26,266.80 without any basis being disclosed, and accordingly he was declared as L1. A calculation error seems to have crept in while determining the bid value of the Respondent No.6. The said matter requires to be considered by perusing the connected records.

¶5Accordingly, the present appeal stands disposed of with a direction that status quo, as on today with regard to the supply of materials, as awarded to the private respondent no.6, shall be maintained till 07.03.2024. On 07.03.2024, the learned Single Judge after perusal of the records, shall be at liberty to pass further order(s), as may be called for, in the matter. The respondent authorities are directed to place the records, in original, before the learned Single Judge on 07.03.2024. With the above observations and directions, the writ appeal stands disposed. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant