Judgment & Order (Oral):

1. Heard Mr. M. K. Choudhury, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. P. Bhardwaj, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners in the batch of five writ petitions and Mr. A. K. Bhuyan, the learned Senior Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the BTC.

2. The Petitioners in the present batch of five writ petitions are aggrieved by the decision taken on 14.10.2025 by the Executive Council of Bodoland Territorial Council whereby it was decided that in respect to those contracts where no work order(s) against the Scheme have been issued and where work order have been issued but the work have not started, the Administrative Approval would be cancelled. The fall out of the said decision have further aggrieved the Petitioners inasmuch as the work orders qua the Petitioners have been cancelled and fresh Notice Inviting Tenders/Short Notice Inviting Tenders have been issued. It is under such circumstances, the present five writ petitions have been filed.

3. The question arises in the instant proceedings is whether this Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in the present facts and circumstances.

4. The materials in each of the writ petitions are detailed herein under:

5. A Notice Inviting Tender dated 09.06.2025 was issued for construction of Muthra FIS at Magurmari (Head works part) under PMKSY-HKKP for the year 2021-22 at Suklai Serfang Goreswar Division (Irrigation), Goreswar. The Petitioner was issued a Letter of Acceptance on 15.07.2025 and further the Petitioner was also directed to furnish the performance guarantee as per the tender conditions. Pursuant thereto, on 23.07.2025, upon furnishing the requisite performance security, the Petitioner was issued the notice to proceed with the work. It was mentioned in the notice to proceed that the time for completion of the work was 12 (twelve) months. Admittedly, the Petitioner herein did not start the work and this aspect is apparent from the report of the physical progress given by the Executive Engineer, Suklai Serfang Goreswar Division which the Petitioner does not contest.

6. The record further reveals that on 14.10.2025, a decision was taken in the Executive Council of the Bodoland Territorial Council wherein amongst others, it was decided to cancel all administrative approvals where no work order against the Scheme was issued and where work order has been issued but work not started at the site. Pursuant to the said decision, the Secretary, Bodoland Territorial Council issued a communication dated 15.10.2025 to the Council Head of the Department, Irrigation Department, BTC, Kokrajhar to cancel all tenders where work orders have not been issued or where work had not been started.

7. The record further reveals that pursuant thereto, there was a verification carried out by the Irrigation Department of the BTC and amongst the various works, the work of the Petitioner was also came within the purview of cancellation inasmuch as there was no work started in the site. Resultantly, vide a communication dated 28.11.2025, the Additional Chief Engineer cum CHD, Irrigation, BTC had cancelled the formal work order issued to the Petitioner and thereupon on 1st of December 2025, an invitation for bids was issued in respect to 100 new SMI Schemes which included the contract work which was awarded to the Petitioner. It is further relevant to take note of that the last date for submission of the bid is on 23.12.2025 as per the invitation for the bids dated 01.12.2025. The Petitioner being aggrieved by issuance of the cancellation vide the communication dated 28.11.2025 as well as the invitation for bids in respect to the work for which the Petitioner was earlier issued a work order dated 23.07.2025 have approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

8. Pursuant to a tender process initiated vide the Notice Inviting Tender dated 09.06.2025, the Petitioner was issued a Letter of Acceptance dated 15.07.2025 for Muthra FIS at Magurmari (Canal and appurtenant structures) under PMKSY-HKKP for the year 2021-22 at Suklai Serfang Goreswar Division (Irrigation), Goreswar. In the said Letter of Acceptance, the Petitioner was asked to submit the performance security in terms of the tender conditions. Pursuant thereto, on 23.07.2025, upon furnishing the requisite performance security, the Petitioner was issued the notice to proceed with the work. It was categorically mentioned in the notice to proceed with the work that the time of completion was 8 (eight) months. Admittedly, the Petitioner herein did not start the work and this aspect is apparent from the report of the physical progress given by the Executive Engineer, Suklai Serfang Goreswar Division which the Petitioner does not contest.

9. The record further reveals that on 14.10.2025, a decision was taken in the Executive Council of the Bodoland Territorial Council wherein amongst others, it was decided to cancel all administrative approvals where no work order against the Scheme was issued and where work order has been issued but work not started at the site. Pursuant to the said decision, the Secretary, Bodoland Territorial Council issued a communication dated 15.10.2025 to the Council Head of the Department, Irrigation Department, BTC, Kokrajhar to cancel all tenders where work orders have not been issued or where work had not been started.

10. The record further reveals that pursuant thereto, there was a verification carried out by the Irrigation Department of the BTC and amongst the various works, the work of the Petitioner was also came within the purview of cancellation inasmuch as there was no work started in the site. Resultantly, vide a communication dated 28.11.2025, the Additional Chief Engineer cum CHD, Irrigation, BTC had cancelled the formal work order issued to the Petitioner and thereupon on 1st of December 2025, an invitation for bids was issued in respect to 100 new SMI Schemes which included the contract work which was earlier awarded to the Petitioner. It is further relevant to take note of that the last date for submission of the bid is on 23.12.2025 as per the invitation for the bids dated 01.12.2025. The Petitioner being aggrieved by issuance of the cancellation vide the communication dated 28.11.2025 as well as the invitation for bids in respect to the work for which the Petitioner was earlier issued a work order dated 23.07.2025 have approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

11. In the instant writ petition, the Petitioner herein was issued a preliminary work order on 26.08.2025 for construction of 1 (one) number of additional cross drainage (size 12.5 m x 600 mm dia) at S2M3D2 ERM Sukla Irrigation Project under PMKSY-AIBP for the year 2021-22. Subsequent thereto, a formal work order was issued on 26.08.2025 and the period of completion was mentioned as 3 (three) months. In view of the decisions so taken in the Minutes of the Meeting dated 14.10.2025 as already stated above, the formal work order so issued to the petitioner herein was also cancelled vide a communication dated 27.11.2025 and a short tender notice was issued on 1st of December 2025 which included the work which was allotted to the petitioner. In the short tender notice, it has been mentioned that upto 2 PM on 16.12.2025, the bids would be accepted. The Petitioner being aggrieved has approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition.

12. In the instant writ petition, the Petitioner herein was issued a preliminary work order dated 20.08.2025 for construction of Boulder Sausage at D2 Canal from Ch. 5345.00m to 5390.00m of ERM Sukla Irrigation Project under PMKSY-AIBP for the year 2021-22. In the said formal work order, the period of completion was mentioned as 3 (three) months. In view of the decision taken in the Minutes of the Meeting dated 14.10.2025, the petitioner’s formal work order was also cancelled vide a communication dated 27.11.2025 and subsequent thereto, a short tender notice was issued on 1st of December 2025 which included the work of the petitioner and the last date for submission of the bid is on 16.12.2025 at 2 PM. The Petitioner being aggrieved has approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition.

13. In the instant writ petition, the Petitioner herein was issued a preliminary work order dated 20.08.2025 for construction of Boulder Sausage at D2 Canal from Ch. 5300.00m to 5345.00m of ERM Sukla Irrigation Project under PMKSY-AIBP for the year 2021-22. In the said formal work order, the period of completion was mentioned as 3 (three) months. In view of the decision taken in the Minutes of the Meeting dated 14.10.2025, the petitioner’s formal work order was also cancelled vide a communication dated 27.11.2025 and subsequent thereto, a short tender notice was issued on 1st of December 2025 which included the work of the petitioner and the last date for submission of the bid is on 16.12.2025 at 2 PM. The Petitioner being aggrieved has approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition.

SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES:

14. Mr. M. K. Choudhury, the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners in the present batch of writ petitions submitted that on account of reasons beyond the control, the Petitioners could not start the work and this very aspect can be very well seen from the physical progress reports being submitted by the Executive Engineer wherein also it is mentioned as to why the Petitioners in the five writ petitions could not start the work. He therefore submitted that the Respondent Authorities ought not to have therefore cancelled the notice to proceed with the work or the formal work orders which have been issued to the Petitioners in the present batch of writ petitions. The learned Senior counsel further submitted that in respect to the Notice Inviting Tender which has been issued pertaining to WP(C) No.7254/2025 and WP(C) No.7265/2025, the Petitioners can still participate in the tender process taking into account that the last date is on 23.12.2025 but however, in respect to the other three writ petitions, the Petitioners therein cannot participate taking into account that today is the last date. He therefore submitted that actions on the part of the Respondent Authorities in cancelling the formal work orders as well as the notice to proceed with the work are in violation to the Article 14 of the Constitution inasmuch as the same are arbitrary and unreasonable more so when the petitioners in WP(C) No.7254/2025 and WP(C) No.7265/2025 have more than six months time for completion of the work.

15. Per contra, Mr. A. K. Bhuyan, the learned Senior Standing counsel for the BTC submitted that the Petitioners in the present batch of writ petitions though were issued work orders as far back as in the month of July and August, 2025, even after a passage of 3-4 months, have not started any work. This aspect would be clear from the own admission of the Petitioners. The learned Senior Standing counsel further submitted that in respect to the Petitioner in WP(C) No.7251/2025, WP(C) No.7253/2025 and WP(C) No.7266/2025, the formal work orders were issued on 20.08.2025 and the period of completion was duly mentioned as 3 (three) months. The learned Senior Standing counsel submitted that even after the period of three months, the Petitioners herein had not started the works and under such circumstances, this Court may not interfere with the tender process inasmuch as the works in question are sponsored works and if there is any interference or a stay being granted in the instant proceedings, the funds would remain unutilized and return back. Further to that, as regards the Petitioners in WP(C) No.7254/2025 and WP(C) No.7265/2025, the learned Senior Standing counsel submitted then even after the passage of four months, they have not even started any work and as such, the Respondent Authorities have rightly taken a decision to go ahead with a fresh tender process.

16. This Court while hearing the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties had enquired with Mr. A. K. Bhuyan, the learned Senior Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the BTC as to whether it is possible for extending the period in respect to the short tender notice dated 01.12.2025 by some period so that the Petitioners herein can also participate. The Senior Standing counsel upon instructions submitted that the Respondents are contemplating issuance of a fresh corrigendum in respect to the Short Tender Notice dated 01.12.2025 thereby extending the period for submission of the bid by 7 (seven) days.

ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION:

17. The materials on record reveal that though the Petitioners in the present batch of petitions have been awarded contracts, however, the Petitioners have not carried out any physical progress in the works in question. In respect to the Petitioners in WP(C) No.7251/2025, WP(C) No.7253/2025 and WP(C) No.7266/2025, it is seen that the formal work orders were issued on 20.08.2025 and these work orders were cancelled on 27.11.2025. The period of completion of the work was 3 (three) months meaning thereby that the work ought to have been completed on or before 20.11.2025. However, the Petitioners in WP(C) No.7251/2025, WP(C) No.7253/2025 and WP(C) No.7266/2025 have not started any work as on the date of cancellation. Under such circumstances, it is therefore the opinion of this Court that the question of interference with the decision to go for a fresh tender in respect to the work so awarded to the Petitioners in the three petition being in WP(C) No.7251/2025, WP(C) No.7253/2025 and WP(C) No.7266/2025 do not call for any interference.

18. It is also seen that in respect to the writ petitioners in WP(C) No.7254/2025 and WP(C) No.7265/2025, the notice to proceed with the work was issued on 23.07.2025. In the case of the writ petitioner in WP(C) No.7254/2025, the period of completion is 12 (twelve) months whereas in the case of the Petitioner in WP(C) No.7265/2025, the period of completion is 8 (eight) months. Inspection was carried out pursuant to the decision of the Executive Council of the BTC and a report was submitted on 10.11.2025 and as on that date there was no inkling of any physical progress.

19. This Court cannot also be unmindful of the fact that these projects in question are sponsored projects and if the funds so allocated remain unutilized in view of not carrying out the works, the funds would have to be returned. Under such circumstances, it is therefore the opinion of this Court that the decision so taken to cancel the Letter of Acceptance as well as the letter to proceed with the works in respect to the Petitioners in WP(C) No.7254/2025 and WP(C) No.7265/2025 do not call for any interference.

20. Accordingly the present batch of five writ petitions stands disposed of with the following observations and directions:

                   (i) This Court does not find any merit in any of the five writ petitions so filed before this Court and accordingly, all the five writ petitions stands dismissed.

                   (ii) The dismissal of all the five writ petitions however, shall not cause any prejudice to the Petitioners to again apply as per the notice inviting bid dated 01.12.2025 as well as Short Notice Inviting Tender dated 01.12.2025.

                   (iii) Taking into account the submission of Mr. A. K. Bhuyan, the learned Senior Standing counsel that the BTC Authorities are contemplating issuing of a corrigendum thereby extending the period of submission of the bid in respect to the Short Notice Inviting Tender dated 01.12.2025 from 16.12.2025 to 23.12.2025, this Court further observes that the Petitioners in WP(C) No.7251/2025, WP(C) No.7253/2025 and WP(C) No.7266/2025 would be at liberty to participate in the said tender process within the extended period as submitted by Mr. A. K. Bhuyan, the learned Senior Standing counsel.

21. Before parting with the records, this Court finds it very pertinent to take note of a submission made by Mr. M. K. Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners in the five petitions. The learned Senior counsel submitted that the Respondent BTC Authorities having cancelled the notice to proceed/formal work orders in the case of the present petitioners are duty bound to refund the performance security. Mr. A. K. Bhuyan, the learned Senior Standing Counsel submitted that upon due application being filed by the Petitioners, the same would be refunded to the Petitioners.