Manipur High Court
M/S Nongmaithem Enterprises vs Vrs on 18 April, 2026
Author: Ahanthem Bimol Singh
Bench: Ahanthem Bimol Singh
LAISHRA Digitally signed
by LAISHRAM
M DHAKESHORI
DHAKESH DEVI
Date: 2026.04.20
ORI DEVI 12:22:21 +05'30' Item Nos. 2-3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
WP(C) No. 287 of 2026
M/S Nongmaithem Enterprises ...Petitioner/s
Vrs.
State of Manipur & 4 ors. ...Respondent/s
With
MC(WP(C)) No. 309 of 2026
-B E F O R E-
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH
18.04.2026
Heard Mr. Tungrei Ngakang, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner.
[2] Issue notice, returnable within three weeks.
[3] Mr. Shyam Sharma, learned GA entered appearance on
behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4 and Mr. Syed Murtaza Ahamad,
learned counsel assisting Mr. N. Jotendro, learned senior counsel
entered appearance and accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 5
and hence, no formal notice is called for.
[4] The present petition has been filed assailing the notification
dated 02-02-2026 issued by the Office of the DC/Executive Director,
DRDA, Ukhrul (DC, Ukhrul for short) by which the Technical bid
submitted by the petitioner in respect of the contract work for
construction of Shirui Heritage Village and Bakshi Ground at Ukhrul
WP(C) No. 287 of 2026 Page 1
District, Manipur had been notified as ‘Disqualified’ and also the work
order dated 23-02-2026 issued by the DC, Ukhrul in favour of the
respondent No. 5.
[5] Mr. Tungrei Ngakang, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submitted that the Technical bid of the petitioner has been
rejected by the authorities only on the ground that the site visiting
certificate, which is not a document included in the list of documents
required to be uploaded online as per tender notification, was not
uploaded by the petitioner. According to the learned counsel, rejection
of the Technical bid submitted by the petitioner on this ground is
arbitrary and illegal.
[6] The acceptance of the Technical bid submitted by the
respondent No. 5 as well as the impugned work order issued in favour
of the respondent No. 5, is arbitrary and illegal inasmuch as the GST
clearance certificate submitted by the respondent No. 5, which
according to the learned counsel is an essential document, is not a valid
certificate in respect of the aforesaid contract work. On this ground, the
impugned notification as well as the impugned work order issued in
favour of the respondent No. 5 are liable to be quashed and set aside.
[7] Mr. Shyam Sharma, learned GA and Mr. N. Jotendro, learned
senior counsel assisted by Mr. Shyed Murtaza Ahamad, learned counsel
WP(C) No. 287 of 2026 Page 2
appearing for the respondents submitted that after considering all the
documents, certificates and objections filed by the bidders, the
impugned notification as well as the work order has been issued and no
arbitrariness or illegalities has been committed by the authorities in
issuing the said impugned notification as well as the impugned work
order. It has further been submitted by Mr. N. Jotendro, learned senior
counsel appearing for respondent No. 5 that the said contract work is a
time bound project which requires completion of the construction within
a time bound manner and that the respondent No. 5 had already started
execution of the work and the work is in advance stage. The learned
senior counsel further submitted that any interference from this Court
at this stage will affect the public interest. The learned senior counsel
as well as the learned GA submitted that they may be given some time
to file detail counter affidavit to decide the matter on merit.
[8] As prayed for by the learned counsel appearing for the
respondents, list these cases again on 01-06-2026.
[9] The parties are directed to complete exchange of their
affidavits on or before the next date of hearing without fail.
JUDGE
Dhakeshori
WP(C) No. 287 of 2026 Page 3