M/S Durga Motors vs. The State Of Ap And 4 Ors

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Durga Motors, a Class-II contractor registered in Papum Pare district, Arunachal Pradesh, challenged a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated March 12, 2025, and the subsequent award of a contract to respondent no. 5. The petitioner contended that the NIT was issued manually, violating financial rules and the PWD Works Manual, and that insufficient time was provided for tender submission, rendering the process unfair and non-transparent. The tender was for the construction of a 120-bedded hostel at Toru, Papum Pare district, with an estimated cost of Rs. 5,04,90,000/-. The petitioner argued that the tender process and award were flawed.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner lacks the locus standi to challenge the tender process. The Court referred to Entry 5 of the Schedule to the 2015 Act, which stipulates that for works costing above Rs. 3.00 crore and up to Rs. 8.00 crore, eligibility is for "all registered contractors in class-II categories domiciled within the territorial jurisdiction of Assembly Constituency." The Court reasoned that the provision refers to the "registered contractor" and not the "proprietor of the registered contractor." Therefore, even if the proprietor resides in Toru, the eligibility is determined by the registration of the firm and its domicile within the specific Assembly Constituency. Since the petitioner's firm is registered in Bandardewa (under 14-Doimukh Assembly Constituency) and the work is in Toru (under 15-Sagalee Assembly Constituency), the petitioner is ex-facie ineligible to bid. The objection to the maintainability of the writ petition raised by the RWD was accepted, and the writ petition was dismissed at the motion stage.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner has the locus standi to challenge the tender process and award of contract, considering the provisions of the Arunachal Pradesh District Based Entrepreneurs and Professionals (Incentives, Development and Promotional) Act, 2015, as amended by Act-7 of 2020 (hereinafter referred to as the “2015 Act”). Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that although their firm is registered in Bandardewa, Papum Pare district, the proprietor is a resident of Toru locality, making them eligible to participate in the tender. They relied on their domicile in the Toru area. Revenue/State's Argument: The State (RWD) argued that for contracts costing above Rs. 3.00 crore and up to Rs. 8.00 crore, eligibility is restricted to contractors registered in Class-II category and domiciled within the territorial jurisdiction of the Assembly Constituency. They contended that the petitioner's firm is registered in Papum Pare district but falls under the 14-Doimukh Assembly Constituency, while the work is located in Toru, which falls under the 15-Sagalee Assembly Constituency. Therefore, the petitioner is not eligible.