Allowed

M/S Kenge Construction and Company v. The State of Ap

Gauhati HC18 Nov 2020WP(C)/244/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court directed the respondent authorities to dispose of a petitioner's pending representation regarding the award of a road construction work within 30 days and ordered maintenance of status quo until such disposal is completed.

What did the court decide?

Direction to dispose of the pending representation within 30 days and to maintain status quo in the matter till disposal.

M/S Kenge Construction and Company Vs The… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Gauhati HC (2020)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC040006302020

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C) 244/2020

¶5

1:M/S Kenge Construction and Company

¶6

having its registered office at E-sector, Itanagar, Papumpare distt, Arunachal Pradesh represented by its Proprietor Shri Ha Tatu, S/O Late Ha Tama permanent resident of village-Nyokoriang, P.O.- Parsi Parlo, P.S. Koloriang, kurung Kumey Distt, AP

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:The State of AP

¶9

represented by the Secretary/Commissioner, PWD Deptt, Govt of AP, Itanagar

¶10

2:The CE Central Zone-A PWD AP ITANAGAR

¶11

3:THE SE YACHULI CIVIL CIRCLE PWD AP CAM P NAHARLAGUN

¶12

4:THE EE TALI DIVISION PWD CAMP ZIRO LOWER SUBANSIRI DISTT AP

¶13

5:M/S GEPONG

¶14

Page No.# 2/3

¶15

REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SHRI NABAM TAGI R/O B SECTOR NAHARLAGUN PO/PS NAHARLAGUN PAPUMPARE DISTT A

¶16

Advocate for the Petitioner : Rintu Saikia

¶17

Advocate for the Respondent : I. Riram, GA

¶18

BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Date : 18-11-2020

¶21

Heard Mr. R. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. I. Riram, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondents No. 1 to 4.

¶22

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he was the L-1 bidder in pursuance of the NIT issued by the respondent authorities for construction of road from “Parsi parlo to Pip Sorang Circle HQ via Sangio-72.00 im in Kra Daadi District, Arunachal Pradesh” under NLCPR scheme, the respondent No. 5 was given the work order.

¶23

3. The petitioner had filed a representation before the Commissioner, Public Works Department, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, on 05.06.2020, which is still pending consideration by the Commissioner, Public Works Department, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh.

¶24

4. Mr. Saikia, learned counsel has prayed for a direction to the Commissioner, Public Works Department, Arunachal Pradesh directing him to dispose of the aforesaid representation dated 05.06.2020, within specific time frame. Mr. Saikia, learned counsel has further submitted that the respondent No. 5 will also be heard in the aforesaid matter before the Commissioner, Public Works Department, but at this stage the presence of the respondent No. 5 is not necessary.

¶25

5. After hearing both the sides, I am of the considered opinion that the matter

¶26

Page No.# 3/3

¶27

deserves to be disposed of at this stage by allowing the prayer of the petitioner. Therefore, the respondent authority is directed to dispose of the representation dated 05.06.2020 filed by the present petitioner, after hearing the relevant persons, within a period of 30 days.

¶28

6. From the materials available on record, it appears that the work in connection with the construction of road from “Parsi parlo to Pip Sorang Circle HQ via Sangio72.00 im in Kra Daadi District, Arunachal Pradesh” has not yet commenced as because the road is also being constructed under the PMGSY scheme. Therefore, it is hereby directed that in the present matter, the concerned parties shall maintain status quo, till disposal of the representation.

¶29

8. With the above directions, the present writ petition is disposed of.

¶30

JUDGE

¶31

Comparing Assistant

M/S Kenge Construction and Company v. The State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Kenge Construction and Company v. The State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Fireman Tommo Nomuk Vs The State of Ap and Others

M/S Sedi Allied Agency Vs the State of Ap

Himin Lollen Vs Karge Lollen

Batem Pertin Vs Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission

Lham Goley Vs the Union of India

Radhe Pampi Vs the State of Ap