Meghalaya High Court
Date Of Decision: 09.04.2026 vs The State Of Meghalaya Represented By on 9 April, 2026
Author: H. S. Thangkhiew
Bench: H. S. Thangkhiew
2026:MLHC:328
Serial No. 03
Supplementary List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
WP(C) No. 166 of 2025
Date of Decision: 09.04.2026
Shri Firstbornson Lyngkhoi,
S/o (L) L. Lyngdoh,
R/o Mawten, Mawkyrwat,
South West Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya
.... Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. The State of Meghalaya represented by
The Chief Secretary, Government of Meghalaya, Shillong.
2. The Department of Public Works (Roads & Building) Department,
Represented by the Secretary, Government of Meghalaya.
3. The Chief Engineer, Public Works Department (Roads)
Lachumiere, Shillong Meghalaya. 793119, Meghalaya
4. The Superintendent Engineer, Western Circle,
Public Works Department (Roads), Nongstoin,
West Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya.
5. The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department (Roads),
Nongstoin Division, Nongstoin - 793119,
West Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya.
6. Shri. Bunsing Sohphoh,
R/o Upper New Colony. Laitumkhrah. Shillong-03,
East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya.
7. Shri. Specialist Rilung Marbaniang,
R/o Pyndengrei, Nongstoin,
West Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya-793119.
Page 1 of 12
2026:MLHC:328
8. Smti. Banrihun Wahlang,
R/o Nongrangoi, Nongstoin,
West Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya-793119.
9. Smti. Brillianda Marngar,
R/o Lumpyngad, Nongstoin,
West Khasi Hills District. Meghalaya-793119.
10. Smti. Droining lawphniaw,
R/o Upper New Nongstpon, Nongstoin,
West Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya-793119.
11. Smti. Kynsai Kurbah,
R/o New Nongstoin, Nongstoin,
West Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya-793119.
12. Shri. Ioanis Lyngdoh,
R/o Ksehkohlong, Nongstoin,
West Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya-793119.
13. Smti. Rosiful Wanniang,
R/o Mawrusyiar, Nongstoin,
West Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya-793119. ... Respondent(s)
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew, Judge
Appearance:
For the Petitioner(s) : Ms. T. Sutnga, Adv. with
Ms. A. Ksoo, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. A. Kumar, AG with
Mrs. T. Yangi B, AAG
Mr. J.N. Rynjah, GA (For R 1-5)
Mr. G. Syngkrem, Adv. (For R 6-13)
Page 2 of 12
2026:MLHC:328
__________________________________________________________
i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No
Law journals etc:
ii) Whether approved for publication Yes/No
in press:
JUDGMENT AND ORDER(ORAL)
1. The writ petitioner a registered Class-I Government contractor
under the Public Works Department being aggrieved with the action of the
respondent No. 5, in commencing the execution of a public road
construction work for the “Improvement of the existing road including
MBT of New Nongstoin to Nongstoin Village” including different link
roads within Nongstoin in the month of October, 2024, without any
approved sanction order or Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) is before this
Court assailing the same.
2. Ms. T. Sutnga, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
in October, 2024 on coming to learn that road construction activities were
being undertaken along the stretch from New Nongstoin to Nongstoin
Village under the PWD (Roads) Nongstoin Division, the petitioner had
sought information under the RTI Act on 14.10.2024. In reply thereto she
submits, it was explicitly stated no sanction had been issued, nor was any
NIT floated. Thereafter, she submits the petitioner came across a letter
dated 27.03.2025, whereby it was revealed that administrative approval and
Page 3 of 12
2026:MLHC:328sanction for construction and improvement of different link roads at
Nongstoin Village, were approved only in the month of March, 2025, for
an amount of Rs. 6,82,26,100/- (Rupees Six Crores Eighty-Two Lakhs
Twenty-Six Thousand and One Hundred) only for the period of 2024-25.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner then submits that the
respondents had acted illegally and arbitrary, inasmuch as, without the
publication of a Notice Inviting Tender, the execution and commencement
of the work had started in October, 2024 itself, prior to the receipt of
administrative approval and sanction. The work she submits had been
allotted with a mala fide intention to the respondents Nos. 6 to 13, in an
oblique and un-transparent manner. It is further submitted that the petitioner
has the right to participate in government contract works being a registered
Class-I contractor, and the action of the respondents in favouring the
selected persons without due process being followed in public matters, is
illegal and arbitrary. The learned counsel has also contended that Courts
have the power to review government actions including those related to
infrastructure projects, to ensure that they are lawful and fair.
4. In the instant case she submits, though the work in question was
in relation to a congregation that was to be held by the Nongstoin Church,
the manner in which local contractors were selected was totally arbitrary
and in violation of established procedures. The learned counsel has then
Page 4 of 12
2026:MLHC:328referred to the additional affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner to show
that though the respondents had produced a letter which reflected that the
selection of contractors was on the basis of a letter issued by the Balang
Presbyterian, Nongstoin dated 19.09.2024, however the undertaking for the
construction as annexed to the affidavit of the State respondents, had
already been signed and submitted by the contractors on 16.09.2024, which
was prior to the date of the letter of the Church. She therefore, submits that
the manner and conduct of the State respondents with regard to the
suggestion and recommendation, clearly shows that the allocation of work
was done in a collusive manner and on extraneous considerations. The
learned counsel has also touched upon the principles of the Rule of Law,
that mandates that all actions must be in accordance with law and not be
based on personal discretion or bias, especially with regard to the adherence
to financial rules and procedures, which are designed to ensure
transparency and prevent misuse of public funds. In conclusion, the learned
counsel has submitted that this Court in exercise of powers under Article-
226, has wide discretionary powers to mould the relief, even if the same is
not pleaded or prayed for.
5. In support of her case, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the
following judgments: –
i) State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. vs. Dr. Rao, V.B.J. Chelikani
& Ors. 2024 SCC Online Sc 3432Page 5 of 12
2026:MLHC:328
ii) Union of India & Ors. vs. Dinesh Engineer Corporation &
Anr. (2001) 8 SCC 491
iii) J. Ganapatha & Ors. vs. N. Selvarajalou Chetty Trust Rep.
by its Trustees & Ors. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 633
iv) Rajesh D. Darbar & Ors. vs. Narasingrao Krishnaji Kulkarni
& Ors. (2003) 7 SCC 219
v) M/s Power Carriers (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Shri G.M. Lanong &
Ors. Writ Appeal No. 49 of 2010
vi) The Meghalaya State Electricity Board (now Meghalaya
Energy Corporation Ltd.) vs. Shri G.M. Lanong & Anr.
Writ Appeal No. 6 of 2011
6. The learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. J.N. Rynjah,
learned GA for the respondents Nos. 1 to 5, at the outset has submitted that
the writ petition does not survive for adjudication, as the work in question
has been completed and that the petitioner has failed to provide justifiable
ground for the delay in invoking writ remedy. It is submitted that the
petitioner by his own admission, was aware about the on-going project in
early October but however, filed the instant writ petition only in May, 2025,
and as such on the ground of delay itself, the writ petition is not
maintainable. It is further submitted that the writ petition is also liable to be
dismissed, inasmuch as, the same relates to purely private interest of the
petitioner in participating in the project at the cost of larger public interest,
which is the improvement of the roads. The learned Advocate General, has
Page 6 of 12
2026:MLHC:328
also submitted that the petitioner has failed to disclose the existence of any
enforceable legal right in his favour, to seek a mandamus and on this failure
to demonstrate any violation of a legal right or fundamental right, the writ
petition is liable to be rejected.
7. The work in question it is further submitted was assigned to the
contractors due to urgency which had arisen out of an emergent situation
i.e. the holding of the event of a major congregation in the State, and that
on the plea of the Nongstoin Presbyterian Church, vide letter dated
10.09.2024, the urgency of the project was recognised and local qualified
and registered contractors who were aware of the ground realities, came
forward to carry out the work, though with the knowledge that approval etc.
would have taken time. The action of the respondents he submits, satisfies
all the parameters that have been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
inasmuch as, the same was occasioned by genuine emergency, is in public
interest and transparency was maintained through proper estimates with no
advance payment, with the grant of work to multiple local contractors,
based on their capability and past performance. With regard to the
discrepancy in dates as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner,
the learned Advocate General has submitted that though the undertakings
had been signed by the contractors prior to the recommendation made by
the Church, the same was because the request of the Church was ongoing
Page 7 of 12
2026:MLHC:328
as can be seen from the earlier letters dated 10.09.2024, requesting for
construction of the road. He therefore, submits that there being no illegality
in the entire process, the writ petition apart from having been rendered
infructuous, is liable to be dismissed.
8. Mr. G. Syngkrem, learned counsel for respondents 6 to 13, has
adopted the submissions made by the learned Advocate General and has not
advanced any other arguments, except to iterate that the settlement of works
was occasioned due to the urgency involved and the private respondents
having the capacity, were tasked with the same.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties. As observed, the
grievance of the writ petitioner centers only around the deprivation of a
chance to be considered for the aforementioned work, in spite of being
eligible in all respects, due to the impugned actions of the State respondents
who allocated the work to the respondents Nos. 6 to 13, without the same
being tendered, or any due process being followed. In the narration of the
facts as discussed above, the fact that the said work amounting to Rs.
6,82,26,100/- (Rupees Six Crores Eighty-Two Lakhs Twenty-Six
Thousand and One Hundred) had been allocated to the respondents Nos. 6
to 13, without there being any semblance of due process such as the floating
of a tender, is not disputed. Though strong objections have been raised by
the State respondents on the ground of locus and delay, in the considered
Page 8 of 12
2026:MLHC:328
view of this Court in the circumstances of the case, the same will not suffice
to render the writ petition futile. The reason for this is primarily in the
manner in which the work was allocated, which was admittedly not to
public knowledge, or in the public domain, but confined only to the Church
authority and the State respondents. Thus, it could only have been with the
commencement of the construction, that the writ petitioner would be aware,
or come to the knowledge that a project for which he also would have been
otherwise eligible had been initiated. The subsequent steps taken such as
obtaining the RTI replies and collating the other information, having been
pursued by the petitioner, it therefore, cannot be held that the writ petition
is hopelessly barred by delay. As for locus, the petitioner himself being an
eligible contractor, the project being executed in the vicinity itself, for
which he would have participated if the same was tendered, it is well within
his right to question the procedure adopted in settling the work with the
private respondents, de hors any known process.
10. Coming to the sequence of events, it is noted from the
submissions and materials on record, that it is an admitted fact that no
procedure of tendering the work, or any action to ensure transparency or
equal opportunity, had been adopted by the respondents. A perusal of the
affidavit filed by the State respondents at Para-12 thereof, would show that
the process for sanction had already started and the estimates for the said
Page 9 of 12
2026:MLHC:328
work of the road, had already been submitted by the Executive Engineer,
PWD (Roads) vide letter dated 29.02.2024 to the Chief Engineer.
Notwithstanding this aspect, what deserves the attention of this Court as
highlighted by the petitioner, is the manner of allocation and identification
of the private respondents to be only the persons suitable to be favoured
with this public largesse. This Court has also noted the glaring contradiction
in the stand of the State respondents, who have maintained that the
contractors were appointed solely on the recommendation of the Church
authorities vide a letter dated 19.09.2024, which is part of the record, when
in fact in their affidavit itself, at running Annexure-R/4, the State
respondents had already obtained undertakings from the respective
contractors on 16.09.2024, to execute the work even though sanction was
awaited. It would also be pertinent to note herein that on a pointed query
by the Court from the counsel for the private respondents on this point, no
answer was forthcoming, which all the more reinforces the case of the
petitioner as to the arbitrary manner of allocation of the work. Though it
has been argued that the course of action taken by the State respondents
was necessitated, due to the paucity of time required to put the project
through a formal tender process, it is however not understood as to how
only the respondents Nos. 6 to 13, were cherry picked to be favoured with
Page 10 of 12
2026:MLHC:328
the said works and why no recourse was taken to a issuance of a Short
Tender Notice as is the norm for urgent works.
11. It is thus imperative to note at this juncture, that in matters
involving dispensation of public largesse, such as allocation of contracts,
or other resources, Courts especially the Supreme Court of India have laid
down principles to ensure transparency, fairness and non-arbitrariness
under Article-14 of the Constitution. It is therefore, necessary that the State
must formulate well defined rules and guidelines before distributing any
largesse to avoid arbitrary decisions. This would entail the adherence to the
set procedure of public notification (tender), to allow competitive process,
to maintain transparency in criteria, to ensure equal opportunity, to avoid
arbitrariness, so that decisions must not be based on personal preferences,
but should be rational and based on objective standards. To ensure
accountability, the authorities should also document reasons for selecting
or rejecting applicants, and if it is found necessary to deviate from
following such due process or procedure, the same must be justified by the
authorities, inasmuch as, the ultimate goal must be to serve public welfare
not private or political interests.
12. In conclusion, looking into the totality of circumstances, what
can be clearly discerned is that there has been a clear deviation from the
established procedure in the settlement of contracts, notwithstanding the
Page 11 of 12
2026:MLHC:328
urgency, or the other factors such as the want of sanction, where the state
respondents have sought to justify their impugned actions. However, as the
works have since been completed, and the reliefs prayed for are no longer
available for consideration, and though the writ petitioner would have only
be a potential bidder had an NIT been floated, this Court while disposing
of the instant writ petition, deems it fit to award costs to the petitioner
quantified at Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) only.
13. The said cost, shall be borne by the State respondents to the
extent of Rs. 10,000/- and the private respondents Nos. 6 to 13, Rs. 5,000/-
each, to be paid within 4(four) weeks from the date of this order.
14. For the foregoing reasons, and as ordered above, the instant
writ application is closed and disposed of.
JUDGE
Meghalaya
09.04.2026
“V. Lyndem-PS”
Signature Not Verified Page 12 of 12
Digitally signed by
VALENTINO LYNDEM
Date: 2026.04.10 19:28:40 IST
[ad_1]
Source link
