Disposed¶32

Gollo Talung v. The State of Ap and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC11 Feb 2026WP(C)/140/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Gauhati High Court Itanagar Bench; WP(C)/140/2025; Gollo Talung v. State of AP and others; Sanjay Kumar Medhi, J.; order dated 12.02.2026; tender notice EER/RWD/SAG/ET/2023-2024 dated 12.03.2025; three-day bid window versus fourteen-day minimum under Clause 4.13(ii) CPWD Works Manual 2022; Rules 160 and 173 GFR 2017; Rural Works Department, Sagalee, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh; certiorari and mandamus for fresh tender process; work completed before hearing; petition closed as mere academic; no observation on merits; liberty reserved for future appropriate case.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ petition was closed without any observation on merits, with liberty reserved to any aggrieved party to urge the grounds in an appropriate case in future. ¶32

Gollo Talung Vs The State of Ap and 4 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC040004912025

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/140/2025

¶5

Gollo Talung

¶6

Son of Shri Gollo Talik, Village Paga, PO Mengio, PS Sagalee, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

The State of AP and 4 Ors

¶9

through the Principal Secretary, Rural Works Department, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, civil Secretariat, Itanagar.

¶10

2:The Chief Engineer Age: 0 Occupation : Rural Works Department Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar 791111

¶11

3:The Superintending Engineer Age: 0 Occupation : Rural Works Department Itanagar Arunachal Pradesh 791111

¶12

4:The Executive Engineer Age: 0 Occupation : Rural Works Department Sagalee Division Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh.

¶13

5:M/s Solo Enterprises

¶14

Page No.# 2/3

¶15

Age: 0 Occupation : Village Karoi PO and PS Sagalee Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh

¶16

Advocate for the Petitioner : Mato Hali, B Tagia,T Gameh,D Yoka,Jaya Doji

¶17

Advocate for the Respondent : Gimi Tarak, SC (RWD)

¶18

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Date : 12.02.2026

¶21

Heard Shri C. Peter, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri T. Tarak, learned Standing Counsel, RWD.

¶22

2. The instant writ petition was filed with the following relief:

¶23

“a) Issue a writ of Certiorari quashing the Tender Notice No. EER/RWD/SAG/ET/2023-2024 dated 12.03.2025.

¶24

b) Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to initiate a fresh tender process in full compliance with Clause 4.13(ii) of the CPWD Works Manual 2022 and Rules 160 & 173 of the GFR 2017.

¶25

c) Pass an ad-interim order staying all further steps and awards pursuant to the impugned tender pending final disposal of this petition.

¶26

d) Pass any other or further orders deemed just and proper in the interest of justice.”

¶27

Page No.# 3/3

¶28

3. As per the facts projected, the tender notice was published with an unreasonably short bid window of only 3 (three) days. Such recourse have been alleged to be in violation of Clause 4.13(ii) of the CPWD Works Manual 2022, which mandates a minimum of 14 (fourteen) days. Various other grounds have been urged in the writ petition.

¶29

4. This Court has, however, noticed that though this writ petition was instituted on 28.03.2025, notice was issued only on 05.05.2025 and no interim order has been passed.

¶30

5. Shri G. Tarak, learned Counsel for the department, has informed that the work in question has been completed as the construction is over.

¶31

6. In view of the aforesaid development, the adjudication of the present writ petition will be mere academic and no offensive relief would be available.

¶32

7. In view thereof, this writ petition is closed. This Court, however, makes it clear that no observation on merits has been made and any aggrieved party would be at liberty to urge the grounds in an appropriate case in future.

¶33

JUDGE

¶34

Comparing Assistant

Gollo Talung v. The State of Ap and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gollo Talung v. The State of Ap and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Obang Paro Vs The State of Ap and 2 Ors.

M/s Ishvakoo (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs The State Urban Development Agency and Anr.

Lama Tenzin and 2 Ors. Vs The Union of India and 8 Ors.

Gyamar Takar @ Bharat and 2 Ors. Vs The State of Ap and 4 Ors.

Nich Bapu Vs The Rajiv Gandhi University and 2 Ors.

Deepak Gyadi and 5 Ors. Vs The State of Ap and 8 Ors.