WA/28/2026 of M/s T T Enterprises Vs The State of AP and 4 Ors on 29 April 2026

ORDER

Date : 30.04.2026 [M. Choudhury, J] Heard Mr. T. Tapak, learned counsel for the writ appellant and MR. N. Ratan, learned Additional Advocate General for all the respondents.

2. This intra-court appeal is directed against an Order dated 01.04.2026 passed by a learned Single Judge in a writ petition, W.P.[C.] no. 120/2026. By the Order dated 01.04.2026, the learned Single Judge while issuing notice to the respondents, has declined to extend any interim relief to the writ petitioner in the writ petition, who is the writ appellant.

3. The writ appellant as the writ petitioner has preferred the writ petition raising a grievance that certain works were sought to be undertaken at Forest Rest House [FRH] at Chimpu without initiating any tender process and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

4. It transpires that the works in respect of which the appellant-petitioner has raised the grievance are :- [a] maintenance and improvement of the approach road [CC road] leading to the Forest Rest House; [b] renovation of the FRH building, including painting and minor repair works; [c] extension and strengthening of the boundary/security wall for safety and protection of the premises; and [d] installation of overhead water tanks and related infrastructure to ensure adequate water supply.

5. Before the learned Single Judge, it was submitted on behalf of the State respondents that the works sought to be carried out without tender process, were of urgent nature. Due to demolition of the house of the Minister, Environment & Forest, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, the Forest Rest House [FRH] at Chimpu was to be made ready for temporary accommodation of the Minister. The arrangement for accommodation of the Minister was a stop-gap arrangement and the Forest Rest House [FRH] was not in proper and habitable condition at the relevant time, though the works were to be carried out urgently.

6. The appellant-petitioner had moved the writ petition on 01.04.2026. Prior to institution of the writ petition, the appellant-petitioner served a Legal Notice dated 16.03.2026, subsequent to a Representation dated 11.03.2026, upon the respondents, more particularly, the respondent no. 5. In response to the Legal Notice, the respondent no. 5 vide his Reply dated 17.03.2026 mentioned that due to time bound nature of the requirements, the works were carried out much earlier to the appellant-petitioner’s Representation dated 11.03.2026. In the instructions dated 30.03.2026 placed by the learned Additional Advocate General addressed to him by the respondent no. 5, it is mentioned that the following maintenance and renovation works were executed by the Forest Department on an urgent basis :- [i] repair and maintenance of FRH, Chimpu; [ii] construction/improvement of CC approach road; [iii] raising of existing boundary wall; [iv] installation of barbed wire fencing; [v] extension of RCC retaining wall with brick masonry superstructure; and [vi] ancillary infrastructure including water tank etc. After completion of the works, the detailed estimates for the maintenance and renovation works were submitted to the competent authority on 03.12.2025 and accordingly, fund was sanctioned vide Sanction Order dated 06.03.2026. It is the contention on behalf of the State respondents that works were executed much earlier to the institution of the writ petition.

7. The learned Single Judge upon perusal of the same instructions, while issuing notice, had declined to pass any interim order. The relief sought for by the appellant-petitioner is in the form of issuance of a Tender Notice for carrying out the works at the Forest Rest House [FRH] at Chimpu. Since it has been asserted on behalf of the State respondents that works were carried out much earlier to the appellant-petitioner’s Representation dated 11.03.2026, we do not find any reason to interfere with the interim Order dated 01.04.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge.

8. It is clarified that the observations made above are only for the purpose of examining the legality and validity of the interim Order dated 01.04.2026 and shall not be construed as observations on the merits of the writ petition.

9. With the above observations, the writ appeal stands dismissed. No cost.

10. The instructions placed by the learned Additional Advocate General are to be kept with the case record.

JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant