M/S Nirbhay Construction vs State of Manipur and 4 Ors

REPORTABLE

2026:MNHC:212-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL


WA No. 25 of 2026
M/S Nirbhay Construction, having its registered office at Gonda (U.P.)
represented by Md. Irfan Ahmad, aged about 27 years, S/o Md. Zakir
Ahmad, resident of Lilong Khunou, P.O & P.S. Lilong, District- Thoubal,
Manipur-795130.
... APPELLANT
-Versus-
1. The State of Manipur, through the Chief Secretary/Commissioner/
Secretary, (RD & PR), Govt. of Manipur, Secretariat, Mantripukhri,
P.O. Mantripukhri & P.S. Heingang, District Imphal East, Manipur-
795002.
2. The Chief Engineer, Rural Engineering Department, 4th Floor,
Secured Office Complex, A.T. Line, North AOC, Imphal, Manipur.
3. Manipur State Rural Roads Development Agency (MSRRDA),
represented by its Chief Executive Officer, 4th Floor, Secured Office
Complex, A.T. Line, North AOC, Imphal, Manipur.
4. M/s Bhartia Infra Projects Limited, represented by its Managing

Director /authorised Director, 201, Royal Arcade, Dr. B. Baruah Road,
Ulubari, Guwahati, Assam-781007.
5. The Director General, National Rural Infrastructure Development
Agency (NRIDA), Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India
NBCC Tower, 5th Floor, Bhikaji Cama Place, Rama Krishna Puram,
New Delhi - 110066.
... RESPONDENTS
with
MC(WA) No. 64 of 2026

M/S Nirbhay Construction, having its registered office at Gonda (U.P.)
represented by Md. Irfan Ahmad, aged about 27 years, S/o Md. Zakir
Page 1 of 32

Ahmad, resident of Lilong Khunou, P.O & P.S. Lilong, District- Thoubal,
Manipur-795130.
... Applicant
-Versus-
1. The State of Manipur, through the Chief Secretary/Commissioner/
Secretary, (RD & PR), Govt. of Manipur, Secretariat, Mantripukhri, P.O.
Mantripukhri & P.S. Heingang, District Imphal East, Manipur-795002.
2. The Chief Engineer, Rural Engineering Department, 4th Floor, Secured
Office Complex, A.T. Line, North AOC, Imphal, Manipur.
3. Manipur State Rural Roads Development Agency (MSRRDA),
represented by its Chief Executive Officer, 4th Floor, Secured Office
Complex, A.T. Line, North AOC, Imphal, Manipur.
4. M/s Bhartia Infra Projects Limited, represented by its Managing Director
/authorised Director, 201, Royal Arcade, Dr. B. Baruah Road, Ulubari,
Guwahati, Assam-781007.
5. The Director General, National Rural Infrastructure Development
Agency (NRIDA), Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India
NBCC Tower, 5th Floor, Bhikaji Cama Place, Rama Krishna Puram, New
Delhi - 110066.
... RESPONDENTS



For appellant/applicant Mr. Prashant Bushan, Advocate along with
Mr. Anjan Prasad Sahu, Advocate
For respondent Nos. 1 to 3 Mr. M. Devananda, Senior Advocate and
Additional Advocate General instructed by
Ms. N. Jyotsana, Advocate.
For respondent No. 4 Mr. N. Jotendro, Senior Advocate instructed
by Mr. Syed Murtaza Ahmed
For respondent No. 5 Mr. B.R. Sharma, Central Government
Counsel (CGC) along with Ms. Pamchui,
Advocate
Date of Order 17.09.2026

Page 2 of 32

BEFORE
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH

JUDGMENT & ORDER
(ORAL)
(M. Sundar, CJ)



[1] The following abbreviations/short forms have been used in this
order (for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity):
Sl.
No.
Abbreviation/Short
Full Form/Expansion
Form/other short
references
1. WA Writ Appeal
2. MC Miscellaneous Case
3. MCs Miscellaneous Cases
4. WP Writ Petition
5. NIT Notice Inviting Tender
6. NsIT Notices Inviting Tender
7. ITB Instruction to Bidder
8. AAG Additional Advocate General
9. CGC Central Government Counsel
10. RED Rural and Engineering Department
11. MSRRDA Manipur State Rural Roads
Development Agency
12. PWD, Manipur Public Works Department, Manipur
13. Specific Relief Act the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of
1963)
st
14. 1 NIT NIT bearing Reference No.
MSRRDA/E-TENDER/PMGSY-III, B-I
2023-2024/RT-3/NIT-6 for 55
packages under Pradhan Mantri Gram
Sadak Yojana for construction of
roads
nd
15. 2 NIT NIT bearing reference No.
MSRRDA/E-TENDER/PMGSY-III,B-I,
Page 3 of 32

Sl.
No.
Abbreviation/Short
Full Form/Expansion
Form/other short
references
2024-25/RT-1/NIT-7 for 41 packages
under Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak
Yojana for construction of roads
16. R1 Respondent No.1
17. R2 Respondent No. 2
18. R3 Respondent No. 3
19. R4 Respondent No. 4
20. R5 Respondent No. 5
21. impugned order impugned order dated 09.09.2026
made by Hon’ble Single Bench in MC
[W.P. (C)] No. 703 of 2026 in W.P.
(C) No. 680 of 2026
22. SCN Show Cause Notice
23. Employer RED/MSRRDA (State)




[2] When the captioned WA and captioned MC were listed before
this Division Bench yesterday (16.09.2026), proceedings/orders were made
by this Division Bench and a reproduction of the same is as follows:
‘IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL

WA No. 25 of 2026
M/S Nirbhay Construction, having its registered office at Gonda (U.P.)
represented by Md. Irfan Ahmad, aged about 27 years, S/o Md. Zakir Ahmad,
resident of Lilong Khunou, P.O & P.S. Lilong, District- Thoubal, Manipur-
795130.
... APPELLANT
-Versus-
Page 4 of 32

1. The State of Manipur, through the Chief Secretary/Commissioner/
Secretary, (RD & PR), Govt. of Manipur, Secretariat, Mantripukhri, P.O.
Mantripukhri & P.S. Heingang, District Imphal East, Manipur-795002.
2. The Chief Engineer, Rural Engineering Department, 4th Floor, Secured
Office Complex, A.T. Line, North AOC, Imphal, Manipur.
3. Manipur State Rural Roads Development Agency (MSRRDA),
represented by its Chief Executive Officer, 4th Floor, Secured Office
Complex, A.T. Line, North AOC, Imphal, Manipur.
4. M/s Bhartia Infra Projects Limited, represented by its Managing
Director /authorised Director, 201, Royal Arcade, Dr. B. Baruah Road,
Ulubari, Guwahati, Assam-781007.
5. The Director General, National Rural Infrastructure Development
Agency (NRIDA), Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India
NBCC Tower, 5th Floor, Bhikaji Cama Place, Rama Krishna Puram,
New Delhi - 110066.
... RESPONDENTS
with
MC(WA) No. 64 of 2026
M/S Nirbhay Construction, having its registered office at Gonda (U.P.)
represented by Md. Irfan Ahmad, aged about 27 years, S/o Md. Zakir
Ahmad, resident of Lilong Khunou, P.O & P.S. Lilong, District- Thoubal,
Manipur-795130.
... Applicant
-Versus-
1. The State of Manipur, through the Chief Secretary/Commissioner/
Secretary, (RD & PR), Govt. of Manipur, Secretariat, Mantripukhri,
P.O. Mantripukhri & P.S. Heingang, District Imphal East, Manipur-
795002.
2. The Chief Engineer, Rural Engineering Department, 4th Floor, Secured
Office Complex, A.T. Line, North AOC, Imphal, Manipur.
3. Manipur State Rural Roads Development Agency (MSRRDA),
represented by its Chief Executive Officer, 4th Floor, Secured Office
Complex, A.T. Line, North AOC, Imphal, Manipur.
Page 5 of 32

4. M/s Bhartia Infra Projects Limited, represented by its Managing
Director /authorised Director, 201, Royal Arcade, Dr. B. Baruah Road,
Ulubari, Guwahati, Assam-781007.
5. The Director General, National Rural Infrastructure Development
Agency (NRIDA), Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India
NBCC Tower, 5th Floor, Bhikaji Cama Place, Rama Krishna Puram,
New Delhi - 110066.
... RESPONDENTS

For appellant/applicant Mr. Prashant Bushan, Advocate along with Mr.
Anjan Prasad Sahu, Advocate
For respondent Nos. 1 to 3 Mr. M. Devananda, Senior Advocate and
Additional Advocate General instructed by Ms.
N. Jyotsana, Advocate.
For respondent No. 4 Mr. N. Jotendro, Senior Advocate instructed by
Mr. Syed Murtaza Ahmed
For respondent No. 5 Mr. B.R. Sharma, Central Government Counsel
(CGC)
Date of Order 16.09.2026

BEFORE
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH
(ORDER)
(Order of the Court was made by Mr. M. Sundar, CJ)

[1] Captioned main writ appeal (WA) is an intra-court appeal and the same
has been filed assailing a ‘order dated 09.09.2026 made by a Hon’ble Single
Bench in MC(WP(C))No.703 of 2026 in WP(C)No.680 of 2026’ (‘impugned order’
for the sake of convenience). To be noted, main writ petition (WP) is pending and
impugned order is an order refusing interim relief.
[2] Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.
Anjan Prasad Sahu, learned counsel on record for writ appellant/MC applicant in
Page 6 of 32

captioned matter is before this Court on the Video Conferencing (VC) platform
and Mr. Anjan Prasad Sahu is in physical Court.
[3] Subject matter of captioned WA pertains to 2(two) notices inviting
tenders both dated 10.07.2026. ‘Notices inviting Tender’ shall referred to as
‘NsIT’. The two notices inviting tender pertain to construction of roads under
Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana, while one NIT bearing reference No.
st
MSRRDA/E-TENDER/PMGSY-III, B-I 2023-2024/RT-3/NIT-6 (1 NIT for the
sake of convenience) is for 55(fifty five) packages, NIT bearing reference No.
nd
MSRRDA/E-TENDER/PMGSY-III,B-I, 2024-25/RT-1/NIT-7(2 NIT for the sake
of convenience) is for 41 (forty one) packages.
[4] Case of the writ appellant is, he bid for 40 (forty) out of 55 (fifty five)
st nd
packages qua 1 NIT and for all 41 (forty one) packages qua 2 NIT.
[5] As regards the timeline as adumbrated by way of a tabulation in the
Notices Inviting Tender, a scanned reproduction of the same is as follows:

To be noted, the timeline is same for both Notices Inviting Tender.
Page 7 of 32

[6] The afore-referred tenders qua 2 NsIT are the usual two part
tenders, Part-I being Technical Bid and Part-II being Financial Bid. Part-I was
opened on 27.07.2026 inter-alia in the presence of the appellant. Thereafter,
the Bids were evaluated and evaluation reports dated 01.09.2026 (96 reports)
were drawn up by State and the writ appellant sent a detailed complaint dated
03.09.2026 raising several issues qua another bidder/tenderer namely, Bhartia
th
Infra Project Ltd which is 4 respondent (R4) in captioned WA/MC and
complaint includes issues such as shortfall qua cumulative machinery and
personnel numbers being falsified by double counting etc.,
[7] The crux and gravamen of the grievance of the writ
appellant/MC applicant is, his 03.09.2026 complaint ought to have been
considered for resolution before opening of Part-II (Financial Bid) but without
doing so notice dated 10.09.2026 regarding opening of Part-II was issued and
Part-II was opened on 14.09.2026. To be noted, this complaint/grievance of the
writ appellant is predicated on clause 22.6 of ‘Instruction To Bidder’ (‘ITB’ for
the sake of convenience) which is section 2 of the NsIT and the same reads as
follows:
‘ 22.6 The result of evaluation of Part-I of the Bids shall be made
public on e-procurement systems following which there will be a
period of five working days during which any bidder may submit
complaint which shall be considered for resolution before
opening Part-II of the bid. ’
[8] Writ appellant, on 08.09.2026 filed WP(C)No.680 of 2026 together with
MC(WP(C))) No.703 of 2026 thereat inter-alia assailing afore-referred
01.09.2026 evaluation reports in so far as they declare R4 to be responsive qua
st nd
Part-I in all 96 (ninety six) packages qua 1 NIT and 2 NIT put together. To be
st nd
noted, 1 NIT is NIT-6 and 2 NIT is NIT-7. There are other limbs of prayers
including writ of Mandamus to employer to treat what is being described as
affected part of Part-I Bid as non-responsive. In this writ petition, afore-referred
MC(WP(C))No.703 of 2026 was taken out with a prayer to restrain official
respondents, State (respondent Nos. 1 to 3) from opening evaluating or acting
upon Part-II Financial Bids of R4 and issuing letters of acceptance/work order
to R4. This interim prayer was rejected/not acceded to vide impugned order and
writ appellant/MC applicant is before this Court.
Page 8 of 32

[9] Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel contended that the complaint of
the writ appellant/MC applicant dated 03.09.2026 are very serious, there is
nothing to demonstrate that the same have been considered for resolution vide
clause 22.6 of ITB of NsIT and writ appellant/MC applicant has not been favored
with any proceedings qua consideration for resolution.
[10] In and vide the impugned order, Hon’ble Single Bench has recorded that
the date on which the impugned order was made i.e., 09.09.2026 is the last date
for disposal of complaint submitted by the writ appellant and it proceeds on the
basis that the apprehension of the writ appellant that financial bid will be opened
without considering the objection/complaint of the WP petitioner (WA Appellant)
is not sustainable.
[11] As already alluded to supra, Part-II (financial bid) has now been opened
on 14.09.2026 and the writ appellant/MC applicant has not been favored with
any copy qua consideration for resolution of 03.09.2026 complaint.
[12] Issue notice.
[13] Ms. N. Jyotsana, learned State counsel accepts notice for R1 to R3, Mr.
BR. Sharma, learned CGC (Central Government Counsel) accepts notice for R5
and Mr. Syed Murtaza Ahmed, learned counsel accepts notice for R4 (private
respondent). To be noted, as regards R1 to R3 and R4 they have lodged caveats.
State counsel for R1 to R3 is led by Senior Advocate and Additional Advocate
General Mr. M. Devananda and Mr. Syed Murtaza Ahmed, learned counsel is
led by senior Advocate Mr. N. Jotendro.
[14] As regards the interim order qua captioned MC, the prayer is as follows:
In the premises aforesaid it is most respectfully prayed that
your Lordships may be pleased to:

i. pending disposal of the accompanying Writ
Appeal, restrain Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 from
issuing any letter of acceptance or work order,
awarding a contract, executing an agreement or
otherwise creating contractual rights in favour of
Respondent No. 4 in all packages.
ii. Pass any other order that this Hon'ble Court deems fit.
[15] We heard the afore-referred caveators on the interim order. This
Court was informed that letters of acceptance have been issued qua 41 (forty
Page 9 of 32

one) packages to R4 but works contracts are yet to be issued owing to the
requirement for the tenderers to produce documents such as bank guarantees.
[16] Learned Additional Advocate General, adverting to a
communication from Government of India, more particularly R5 submits that
it is a time bound project and 30.09.2026 is the cut off date, failing which the
funds will lapse. In this view of the matter, all parties before this Court agreed
to have the main intra Court WA heard out tomorrow. Respondents to bring on
record affidavits-in-opposition in MC if deemed necessary.
[17] Learned Additional Advocate General very fairly submitted and
undertook that work orders to R4 will not be issued till tomorrow when the
matter will be heard out. This submission is recorded as an undertaking given
to the Court. Writ appellant/MC applicant submits that they may have to bring
some additional documents on record. They may do so as long as they are
documents which were before the Single Bench or if it is with regard to the
subsequent development, the same will be looked into depending on relevance
at the discretion of this Court as we are in a intra Court appeal.
[18] List tomorrow (i.e., 17.09.2026) before this Special Division
Bench at 2:00 p.m.’
[3] The afore-referred proceedings/order made in the listing
yesterday captures factual matrix in a nutshell, crux and gravamen of lis in
captioned WA/MC and the trajectory the litigation has taken thus far and
therefore the same shall now be read as an integral part and parcel of instant
order.
[4] In the hearing today, Mr. Prashant Bushan, learned counsel
appearing for/along with Mr. Anjan Prasad Sahu, learned counsel on record for
the captioned WA appellant/MC applicant is before this Court on the Video
Conferencing (VC) platform. Mr. Anjan Prasad Sahu, learned counsel on record
for writ appellant, Mr. M. Devananda, learned senior advocate and AAG
instructed by Ms. N. Jyotsana, learned State counsel for R1 to R3, Mr. N.
Page 10 of 32

Jotendro, learned senior counsel instructed by Mr. Syed Murtaza Ahmed,
learned counsel on record for R4 and Mr. BR Sharma, learned CGC along with
Ms. Pamchui, learned counsel for R5 are before this Court (physical Court).
Adverting to afore-referred proceedings made in the previous listing
yesterday, all the learned senior counsel and counsel agreed to have the
main WA taken up and heard out. To be noted, as regards affidavits-in-
opposition, R2 and R3 have filed a common affidavit-in-opposition dated
17.09.2026 together with 7 (seven) Annexures (R/1-R/7). Learned AAG on
instructions submitted that this can be treated as affidavit-in-opposition for
R1 also. This submission is recorded. As regards R4, an affidavit-in-
opposition dated 17.09.2026 has been filed along with 2 (two) Annexures
(X/1 and X/2). As regards R5, Mr. BR Sharma, learned CGC submits that R5
is a formal party and it is not filing any affidavit-in-opposition. This submission
is also recorded.
[5] As regards writ appellant, an additional affidavit dated
17.09.2026 together with 5 (five) Annexures (Y/2 to Y/5) have been filed
seeking leave in this regard vide MC (W.A.) No. 65 of 2026 and this MC was
allowed in and by a separate order today, which reads as follows:
Order dated 17.09.2026 in MC (W.A.) No. 65 of 2026
‘ [1] Captioned Miscellaneous Case (MC) has been taken out with
a prayer to grant leave to file an additional affidavit [additional affidavit
dated 17.09.2026 together with five Annexures (Y/1 to Y/5) thereat] in
the main appeal.
Page 11 of 32

[2] In the main writ appeal, proceedings were made in the listing
yesterday (16.09.2026), relevant paragraph is paragraph 17 and
paragraph 17 to the extent relevant reads as follows:
‘[17] ... Writ appellant/MC applicant submits that they may have
to bring some additional documents on record. They may do so as long as they
are documents which were before the Single Bench or if it is with regard to the
subsequent development, the same will be looked into depending on relevance
at the discretion of this Court as we are in a intra Court appeal. ’

[3] As regards respondents in the captioned MC, learned
Additional Advocate General for State of Manipur and senior advocate,
Mr. M. Devananda, instructed by learned State counsel, Ms. N. Jyotsana
for respondent Nos. 1 to 3, Mr. N. Jotendro, learned senior counsel
instructed by Mr. Syed Murtaza Ahmed, learned counsel on record for
respondent No. 4 and Mr. BR Sharma, learned CGC (Central
Government Counsel) along with Ms. Pamchui, learned counsel for
respondent No. 5, submit in one voice that they are not opposing the
prayer in the captioned MC, they would not be filing affidavits-in-
opposition but they only request that their rights to make submission on
the contents of the additional affidavit and the annexures thereto may
please be preserved. They also advert to the afore-referred portion of the
proceedings made by this Court in the last listing yesterday.
[4] In the light of the fair stand taken by the respondents, this
Court is of the considered view that it need not be detained any further
by captioned MC. Suffice to write that captioned MC is allowed/ordered
as prayed for but with preservation of all rights and contentions of
respondents to make submissions on the contents of additional affidavit
and Annexures thereto, besides preservation of the position set out in the
proceedings made yesterday relevant portion of which has been
extracted and reproduced supra.
Page 12 of 32

[5] Captioned MC ordered as prayed for/allowed albeit with
observations and preservation of rights and contentions in the aforesaid
manner. There shall be no order as to costs. ’
[6] Learned counsel for WA appellant and MC applicant, in the hearing
today, notwithstanding myriad grounds/points in the memorandum of grounds
of appeal/additional affidavit, adverting to the affidavit-in-opposition of R2 and
R3 and more particularly, Annexure-R/4 thereat, submitted that the complaints
raised by the appellant (vide complaint against R4 dated 03.09.2026) are
detailed, serious but the same have been dealt with in a cursory, summary
manner and the writ appellant has not been favoured with a copy of/details of
the complaint was considered for resolution. Advancing his submissions in this
direction, to buttress his arguments, as illustrations, learned counsel Mr.
Prashant Bhushan, adverting to the 03.09.2026 complaint pointed out that it
inter-alia raises the issue that R4 falls materially short of the cumulative
machinery requirement in great detail vide (II) of the complaint. Adverting to
the counter affidavit of R1 to R3, it was pointed out that R4 has taken a stand
that machinery has been purchased from one Sharma Brothers at an invoice
cost of a little over Rs. 9.57 crores. As part of bid documents, a receipt from
one Sharma Brothers being Receipt dated 09.07.2026 has been annexed, it
comes to light that State has written to Sharma Brothers on 05.08.2026 and
Sharma Brothers has replied on 08.08.2026 saying that they have neither
received payment in cash nor cheque but this has been brushed aside by saying
that machinery/resource proposed purchased position supported/verified with
original bid material and signed supply agreement. As another illustration, it was
Page 13 of 32

pointed out that one other complaint [vide (IV) of 03.09.2026 complaint] is that
R4 personnel deployment contains a mathematically demonstrable double-
counting and shortfall but this has also been brushed aside by saying that
personnel affidavits have been recorded as submitted, a non-specific material
deviation established. As one more illustration, it was pointed out that there are
CBI (Central Bureau of Investigation) proceedings against R4 and that the same
has not been disclosed but that has been given a closure on the ground that
the proceedings are stayed by a Court. Learned counsel also referred to Clause
32.5 of NIT. To be noted, learned counsel referred to Clause 32.5 as a Rule but
this Court is of the considered view that as it is a Clause forming part of ITB
which is Section 2 of NsIT it is therefore a clause in a contract. Be that as it
may, Clause 32.5 makes it clear that any willful misrepresentation or omission
of facts or submission of fake/forged documents, will result in disqualifying a
bidder but the same has not been done. Notwithstanding this point, more
particularly the receipt from Sharma Brothers, it was also urged and contended
that no SCN has been issued to writ appellant as it comes to light that there are
complaints against WA appellant/MC applicant also.
[7] Responding to aforesaid submissions, learned AAG drew our
attention to that part of NsIT captioned Bid Opening Evaluation , this caption
is vide E and Clauses 22 to 26 are under this caption. To be noted, thereafter
Clause 27 is captioned Award of Contract and a sub caption thereat is Award
Criteria . Adverting to Clause 22, more particularly, 22.1 to 22.8 which deal with
Bid Opening, it was submitted that all that is required to be done by the
Page 14 of 32

Employer is consideration of the complaint for resolution before opening Part-
II(Financial Bid), that has been done vide afore-referred 10.09.2026
proceedings and the Part-II tender was opened on 11.07.2026 after notifying
all bidders including the appellant. In this regard, this Court deems it
appropriate to record that in the proceedings made in the listing yesterday
(16.09.2026) vide paragraph 7, we have recorded the submission of learned
counsel for writ appellant that Part-II (Financial Bid) was opened on
‘14.09.2026’ based on submission of Mr. Anjan Prasad Sahu (on instructions
from his client). However, today, expressed regret for the incorrect factual
representation. Learned counsel tendered an apology and requested this Court
to treat the date of opening of Part-II (Financial Bid) as ‘ 11.09.2026’ . This
submission is recorded and the apology is accepted. This means that there is
no disputation or contestation between the parties that Part II (Financial Bid)
was opened on 11.09.2026 after consideration of resolution of complaints on
10.09.2026. To be noted, Part II was opened after notifying all bidders including
Appellant. While on proceedings made in the listing yesterday, it is deemed
appropriate to record that with regard to paragraph 15 thereat, the submission
of learned State counsel that letters of acceptance have been issued for ‘41
packages’ to R4 but we are informed today that letters of acceptance have been
issued to R4 for ‘84 packages’ and for the remaining 12 packages, letters of
acceptance have been issued to 7(seven) different contractors/bidders. This
part of instant order shall be treated as an erratum/corrigendum qua earlier
Page 15 of 32

proceedings made in the listing yesterday though it was no error on the part of
this Court.
[8] This takes this Court to the question as to whether copy of
10.09.2026 proceedings should have been furnished to the appellant before
opening Part II (Financial Bid). As pointed out by learned AAG, a careful perusal
of the Clauses of NsIT { to be noted, there is no disputation or contestation that
clauses of NsIT adverbatum same with the exception packages} make it clear
that there is neither any provision for furnishing bidders with proceedings qua
consideration for resolution of their complaints nor any time period between
consideration of resolution and opening of Part-II (Financial Bid). In this regard,
this Court respectfully reminds itself that Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly
held that Clauses in tenders are to be construed as Clauses in a contract and
are not codified rules. This position of law is well settled inter-alia in oft quoted
Tata Cellular vs. Union of India reported in (1994) 6 SCC 651 which has
been reiterated in N.G. Projects Limited Vs. Vinod Kumar Jain and Others
reported in (2022) 6 SCC 127 and further reiterated in M/S. AL-Can Export
Private Limited vs. Prestige H.M. Polycontainers Limited & Others
reported in (2024) 9 SCC 94 . There will be a little more allusion about these
case laws elsewhere infra in instant order. This takes this order to the question
of whether SCN should have been issued to the bidder more particularly, the
appellant. Relevant Clauses in NsIT which have the character of Clauses in a
contract merely provide for ‘consideration for resolution’ before opening of Part-
II therefore, there is no difficulty for this Court in accepting the submission that
Page 16 of 32

there is no provision for issuing SCN. Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly
held particularly in Jagdish Mandal , Michigan Rubber and Afcons that
employer who drafted the NsIT is in the best position to interpret the purpose
and purport of the Clauses and that soundness of decision by the employer
cannot be questioned. In this regard, we find that the 6 (six) postulates (this
will be set out infra) in Tata Cellular make it clear that this is not a case for
interference. In any event, on facts, the 10.09.2026 proceedings which are
consideration for resolution is after the impugned order (impugned order is
dated 09.09.2026) and it would be completely outside the remit and legal
perimeter of the captioned WA nonetheless as the option to the WA appellant
to go before the Single Bench has been turned down by learned counsel for
appellant by saying that an interim order injuncting the tender process till
disposal of the WP is necessary, if the matter is remitted to Single Bench, this
Court is left with the Hobson’s choice of dealing with the points raised on merits.
[9] As regards R4, Mr. N. Jotendro, learned senior counsel raised a
preliminary point. Learned senior counsel submitted that the captioned WA,
even according the WA appellant, has been filed by one Mr. Md. Irfan Ahmad
on the basis of an authority dated 16.06.2026 but according to the contents of
the WP, it is an authority only for filing a writ petition and there is no material
in WA paper book showing authority for filing captioned WA. This Court notices
that there is a more fundamental issue. In the cause title, writ appellant and
MC applicant has been described as follows:
Page 17 of 32

‘M/S Nirbhay Construction, having its registered office at Gonda
(U.P.) represented by Md. Irfan Ahmad, aged about 27 years, S/o
Md. Zakir Ahmad, resident of Lilong Khunou, P.O & P.S.
Lilong, District- Thoubal, Manipur-795130’
Sub Paragraph (A) of paragraph 1 of the memorandum of grounds
of appeal reads as follow:
1. FACTS: That, the brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the
present writ appeal are set up herein as under :-
(A) The Appellant is the writ petitioner in WP(C) No. 680 of 2026 and the
applicant in MC(WP(C)) No. 703 of 2026. It is a sole proprietorship of
Shri Nirbhay Pratap Singh, represented by Md. Irfan Ahmad under the
authority dated 16.06.2026. This appeal is confined to the order dated
09.09.2026, insofar as it rejects interim relief and disposes of MC(WP(C))
No. 703 of 2026. The directions issuing notice in the writ petition are not
challenged. The writ petition remains pending.
Therefore, it is clear that one Mr. Nirbhay Pratap Singh is carrying
on business in the name and style ‘Nirbhay Construction’ as sole proprietor
which means that even according to the averments of the writ appellant,
‘Nirbhay Construction’ is not juridical person (obviously not a natural person), it
has no legal character, it is not a legal entity and at the highest only the natural
person namely Mr. Nirbhay Pratap Singh could have been the appellant and he
could have described himself as a natural person carrying on business in the
name and style ‘Nirbhay Construction’ as sole proprietor. There will be a little
Page 18 of 32

more allusion about this elsewhere infra in this order. Thereafter, Mr. N.
Jotendro, learned senior counsel briefly adverted to the oft cited N.G. Projects .
To be noted, we have already referred to N.G. Projects elsewhere supra in this
order. Adverting to N.G. Projects , learned senior counsel submitted that Tata
Cellular has been reiterated in N.G. Projects and the scope of judicial review
qua tender matters is very limited.
[10] As regards Mr. BR Sharma, learned CGC for respondent No. 5,
he submitted that respondent No. 5 is only a formal party but Central
Government is funding the projects. Learned AAG submits on instructions that
the projects are under CSS (Centrally Sponsored Scheme). The cost of the
project (96 packages) is in the region of Rs. 638 crores and under CCS Central
Government funding is 90% as regards State of Manipur while it is only 50% in
many other States.
[11] By way of reply, Mr. Prashant Bushan, learned counsel submitted
that N.G. Projects is distinguishable on facts. Learned counsel submitted that
in N.G. Projects , a contract had been awarded, the contractor had commenced
work and thereafter a WP was filed by another contractor before Hon’ble Single
Bench in Jharkhand High Court which allowed the WP. We noticed that an intra
court appeal by the State in Jharkhand High Court was negatived, the matter
was carried to Hon’ble Supreme Court and N.G. Projects was rendered by
Hon’ble Supreme Court.
[12] This Court carefully considered the afore-referred submissions.
Before we set out an adumbration of our discussion and also our
dispositive reasoning on the points one after the other infra we deemed it
Page 19 of 32

appropriate to set out the legal platform on which points were tested qua our
dispositive reasoning. Tata Cellular was rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court
on 26.07.1994. On facts, Tata Cellular is a case where the Department of Tele
Communications, Government of India invited tenders from Indian Companies
for licensing operation on what was known as Cellular Mobile Telephone Service.
This tender process was also a 2 (two) part tender akin to the factual matrix in
the case at hand. 30 (thirty) bidders participated initially at the first stage.
Thereafter, shortlisting, opening of tenders etc. happened and to be noted, the
tender was for operation of Cellular Mobile Telephone Services in 4(four)
metropolitan cities in India viz., Delhi, Bombay, Calcutta, and Madras. The
tender process was challenged by multiple writ petitions inter alia on the ground
that the evaluation is bad. It is in this context that in Tata Cellular , Hon’ble
Supreme Court after making a survey of case laws on the subject, deduced
6(six) principles for judicial review in what has now come to stay in legal
parlance as ‘tender jurisdiction’. The 6(six) postulates have been articulated in
paragraph 94 of Tata Cellular [as in SCC report being ( 1994) 6 SCC 651 ]
and the same reads as follows:
‘ 94. The principles deducible from the above are:
(1) The modern trend points to judicial restraint in administrative
action.
(2) The court does not sit as a court of appeal but merely reviews the
manner in which the decision was made.
(3) The court does not have the expertise to correct the
administrative decision. If a review of the administrative
Page 20 of 32

decision is permitted it will be substituting its own decision,
without the necessary expertise which itself may be fallible.
(4) The terms of the invitation to tender cannot be open to judicial
scrutiny because the invitation to tender is in the realm of
contract. Normally speaking, the decision to accept the tender
or award the contract is reached by process of negotiations
through several tiers. More often than not, such decisions are
made qualitatively by experts.
(5) The Government must have freedom of contract. In other words,
a fair play in the joints is a necessary concomitant for an
administrative body functioning in an administrative sphere or
quasi-administrative sphere. However, the decision must not
only be tested by the application of Wednesbury principle of
reasonableness (including its other facts pointed out above) but
must be free from arbitrariness not affected by bias or actuated
by mala fides.
(6) Quashing decisions may impose heavy administrative burden on
the administration and lead to increased and unbudgeted
expenditure.’
After Tata Cellular , Jagdish Mandal vs. State of Orissa
reported in (2007) 14 SCC 517 and Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. Vs.
State of Karnataka reported in (2012) 8 SCC 216 were rendered by Hon’ble
Supreme Court. Jagdish Mandal and Michigan Rubber are for the
proposition that soundness of decisions in tender jurisdiction i.e., soundness of
decisions by the Employer cannot be questioned. Thereafter, Central
Coalfields Ltd. vs. SLL-SML (Joint Venture Consortium) was rendered,
the same is reported in (2016) 8 SCC 622 and this is for the proposition that
in tender jurisdiction Court should not substitute its opinion. This was followed
by Afcons Infrastructures Ltd. vs. Nagpur Metro Rail Corpn. Ltd.
Page 21 of 32

reported in (2016) 16 SCC 818 . Afcons is for the proposition that the tender
document is authored by the owner (Employer) and the author of the tender
document is in the best position to understand and appreciate the terms. The
ratio that authors of tenders are the best persons to understand and appreciate
the clauses of tenders was subsequently reiterated in Galaxy Transport
Agencies vs. New J.K. Roadways reported in (2021) 16 SCC 808 . This
was followed by Silppi Constructions Contractors vs. Union of India
reported in (2020) 16 SCC 489 and Silppi is for the proposition that Courts
should be conscious of the limitation of judicial review in tender jurisdiction and
should practice restraint and ensure that interference does not cause havoc.
Thereafter in Uflex Ltd. vs. State of T.N. reported in (2022) 1 SCC 165 the
proposition that tender jurisdiction enlarge the role of government was noticed
followed by National High Speed Rail Corpn. Ltd. vs. Montecarlo Ltd.
reported in (2022) 6 SCC 401 where the broad principle that interim orders
in tender matters, more particularly, public projects will cause delay was laid
down. After noticing all these case laws viz., Tata Cellular , Jagdish Mandal
and Michigan Rubber, Central Coalfields, Galaxy, Afcons, Silppi, Uflex
and Montecarlo, N.G. Projects was rendered. To be noted, suffice to write
that factual matrix in all these cases are akin to facts qua case at hand and this
Court, in this order deems it appropriate not to dilate more on facts of case laws
and burden this order with same, lest it become verbose. As regards oft cited
N.G. Projects a short order with the operative portion alone was first made by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court granting leave and allowing the Civil Appeal
Page 22 of 32

on 07.03.2022 and this is reported (2022) SCC OnLine SC 400 . On
07.03.2022, Hon’ble Supreme Court made it clear that a detailed order will
follow. The detailed order followed, the detailed order is dated 21.03.2022 and
this is reported in (2022) 6 SCC 127 . As regards N.G. Projects , there can be
no disputation on facts i.e., the factual position that one of the contractors
approached a Single Judge of Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court after works
contracts were awarded, on the ground of serious errors in evaluation report,
Single Bench allowed the writ petition and order was confirmed by a Division
Bench in a intra Court appeal. This point by itself in the considered view of this
Court does not make N.G. Projects distinguishable on facts qua the case at
hand. The reason is, the principles laid down in a catena of case laws i.e., long
line of authorities which have been set out supra, the scope of judicial review
in tender jurisdiction has been set out but there is no disputation that they are
all public projects and 2 (two) part tenders viz., ‘Technical Bid’ followed by
‘Financial Bid’. In this view of the matter, the stage of tender at which the Court
was approached really does not matter and does not impact the factual matrix
to the extent of making it factually distinguishable. Another factor in this regards
is a careful and respectful reading of N.G. Projects makes it clear that Hon’ble
Supreme Court has not said that they are refraining from interfering in tender
jurisdiction on the sole ground that work orders have already been issued and
work has commenced. On the contrary, tender jurisdiction has been
exhaustively dealt with in N.G. Projects . In any event, in N.G. Projects , Tata
Page 23 of 32

Cellular has been followed/reiterated and it is nobody’s case that Tata
Cellular is distinguishable on facts qua the factual matrix of the case at hand.
The Specific Relief Act was extensively amended in 2018. One of
the 2018 amendments to Specific Relief Act is insertion of clause (ha) to Section
41 which codified the legal position that injunction should be refused if it would
impede or delay the progress or completion of any infrastructure project. Post
amendment, Section 41 of Specific Relief Act to the extent relevant reads as
follows:
‘41.......Injunction when refused.—An injunction cannot be granted—
(a)...
(b)...
(c)...
(d)...
(e)...
(f)...
(g)...
(h)...
(ha) if it would impede or delay the progress or completion of any
infrastructure project or interfere with the continued provision of relevant
facility related thereto or services being the subject matter of such project
(i)...
(j)...’

Hon’ble Supreme Court in afore-referred long line of authorities
has repeatedly held that road construction/road development projects are
infrastructure projects of public importance. In NG Projects, Hon’ble Supreme
Court noticed afore-referred 2018 amendment to Section 41 of Specific Relief
Act traced how the amendment came in i.e., the 2016 Expert Committee Report
and held that since construction of road is an infrastructure project, keeping in
view the intention of the legislature that infrastructure projects should not be
Page 24 of 32

stayed, held that the High Court could have been well advised to hold its hands
to stay the construction of the infrastructure project. Relevant paragraph in NG
Projects are paragraphs 19 to 21 and the same read as follows:
‘19. The Specific Relief Act, 1963 was amended by Central Act 18
of 2018 when clause (ha) was inserted in Section 41 of the said Act
to say:
"41. (ha) if it would impede or delay the progress or
completion of any infrastructure project or interfere
with the continued provision of relevant facility related
thereto or services being the subject-matter of such
project."
20. Such amendment was in pursuance of the report submitted on
20-6-2016 of the Expert Committee. The report is as under:
"The Expert Committee set on examining the Specific
Relief Act, 1963 submits its Report to Union Law & Justice
Minister recommends modifications for ensuring ease of
doing business.
The Expert Committee set on examining the Specific
Relief Act, 1963 today submitted its Report to Union Law &
Justice Minister Shri D.V. Sadananda Gowda here in New
Delhi. In its report the committee has recommended
modifications in the Specific Relief Act, 1963 for ensuring the
ease of doing business.
In the context of tremendous developments which have
taken place since 1963 and the present changed scenario
involving contract based infrastructure developments, public
private partnerships and other public projects, involving
huge investments; and changes required in the present
scheme of the Act so that specific performance is granted as
a general rule and grant of compensation or damages for
non-performance remains as an exception, the committee
decided-
(i) To change the approach, from damages being the
rule and specific performance being the exception, to
specific performance being the rule, and damages
being the alternate remedy.
(ii) To provide guidelines for reducing the discretion
granted to courts and tribunals while granting
performance and injunctive reliefs.
Page 25 of 32

(iii) To introduce provisions for rights of third parties
(other than for government contracts).
iv) To consider addressing unconscionable contracts,
unfair contracts, reciprocity in contracts, etc. and
implied terms.
The committee observed that there is a need to classify
diverse public utility contracts as a distinct class recognising
the inherent public interest/importance to be addressed in the
Act. Any public work must progress without interruption. This
requires consideration whether a court's intervention in public
works should be minimal. Smooth functioning of public works
projects can be effectively managed through a monitoring
system and regulatory mechanism. The role of courts in this
exercise is to interfere to the minimum extent so that public
works projects will not be impeded or stalled."
21. Since the construction of road is an infrastructure project and keeping
in view the intent of the legislature that infrastructure projects should not
be stayed, the High Court would have been well advised to hold its hand
to stay the construction of the infrastructure project. Such provision should
be kept in view even by the writ court while exercising its jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.’
(Underlining made by this Court for ease of reference)
In UFLEX , Hon’ble Supreme Court held that that the enlarged role
of Government in economic activity and its corresponding ability to give
economic largesse was the bedrock of creating what is commonly called ‘tender
jurisdiction’
It is in this manner that the expression ‘tender jurisdiction’ has
now come to stay as part of legal parlance.
To complete the case laws, we deemed it appropriate to write that
this very Bench in State of Manipur and others vs. Md. Abdul Kashim
(Sanayaima) reported in 2025 (4) MnLJ 280 respectfully followed Tata
Page 26 of 32

Cellular and the 6(six) postulates laid down in Tata Cellular . This Court, in
that order had respectfully noticed that Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated
Tata Cellular as recently as 09.07.2024 in AL-Can Export Private Limited.
On facts, Sanayaima is a matter pertaining to Minor Irrigation (M.I.)
Department of Government of Manipur and the issue was the writ petitioners’
2(two) bids were rejected on the sole ground that he is not empanelled as
Special Contractor in MI Department whereas State contended that the rejection
was not only on that ground. It may not be necessary to advert more to facts
and it will suffice to extract and reproduce paragraphs 7 of Sanayaima and the
same reads as follows:
‘ [7] Before this Court ploughs into the matter, it is deemed
appropriate to remind itself of the scope of judicial review in tender
matters. The lead case in this regard is Tata Cellular v. Union of India
reported in (1994) 6 SCC 651: 1994 Legal Eagle (SC) 653. To be
noted, Tata Cellular continues to be good law and has been reiterated
by Hon'ble Supreme Court recently on 09.07.2024 in AL-Can Export
Private Limited v. Prestige H.M. Polycon-tainers Limited and others
reported in (2024) 9 SCC 94: 2024 Legal Eagle (SC) 606 which also
arises out of tender process. As regards judicial review, six postulates
as set out in Tata Cellular are as follows:
.....
(we have already extracted and reproduced paragraph No.
94 of Tata Cellular supra in paragraph No. 12 in this order
and therefore we are not reproducing that part of
paragraph 7 of Sanayaima again to avoid repetition lest the

order becomes verbose.)

Page 27 of 32

[13] This Court is informed without any disputation that Sanayaima
was not carried to Hon’ble Supreme Court. This Court has verified the websites
but nonetheless learned AAG who as private counsel appeared for the bidder in
Sanayaima , on instructions, confirmed that the matter was ultimately settled.
[14] On the aforesaid legal platform, when we test the point that the
10.09.2026 proceedings dealing with the 03.09.2026 complaint of the writ
appellant was not furnished to the writ petitioner it does not find favour with
us. The reason is, the NIT Clauses do not provide for copies being furnished to
the bidders. It is to be noticed that no time gap has been prescribed between
making of such proceedings and furnishing of copies. Most importantly, a careful
reading of clause 22.6 of ITB which is Section 2 of NIT makes it clear that a
complaint made within 5(five) days from the date on which the evaluation of
Part-I bids are made public on e-procurement system shall be ‘
considered for
before , thereafter, clause 22.7 merely
resolution’ opening Part-II of the bid
says that the Employer shall inform the bidders who have qualified during
evaluation of Part-I of the date, time of online opening of Part-II of the bid. In
any event, in the case at hand as would be clear from the allusion supra the
Part-II bid (Financial Bid) was opened on 11.09.2026 after putting all bidders
on notice including the appellant. There is no disputation on this point and
therefore, we find complete and comprehensive compliance as regards the bid
opening and evaluation.
[15] In any event, the ‘consideration for resolution’ is post impugned
order. To be noted, impugned order is dated 09.09.2026 and consideration of
Page 28 of 32

the 03.09.2026 complaint of the writ appellant (complaint against R4) for
resolution has been made on 10.09.2026. The Part-II Financial Bid was opened
only thereafter on 11.09.2026. In this view of the matter we gave the option to
the writ appellant to raise all these points before the Hon’ble Single Judge as
the main WP is pending and the impugned order is only a refusal/rejection to
grant an interim prayer but the writ appellant insisted and invited an order from
this Court. It was contended that the grant of work orders should be put on
hold until the writ petition is decided. In this regard, we find that in the long
line of authorities including N.G. Projects , Hon’ble Supreme Court has put in
a caution saying that contracts of public service should not be interfered with
lightly and in any case there should not be any interim order derailing the entire
process of services meant for larger public. This is vide paragraph Nos. 26 & 27
of N.G. Projects and the same reads as follows:
‘ 26. A word of caution ought to be mentioned herein that any contract
of public service should not be interfered with lightly and in any case,
there should not be any interim order derailing the entire process of
the services meant for larger public good. The grant of interim
injunction by the learned Single Bench of the High Court has helped
no one except a contractor who lost a contract bid and has only
caused loss to the State with no corresponding gain to anyone.
27. We also find that multiple layers of exercise of jurisdiction also
delay the final adjudication challenging the grant of tender.
Therefore, it would be open to the High Courts or the Hon'ble Chief
Justice to entrust these petitions to a Division Bench of the High
Court, which would avoid at least hearing by one of the forums. ’
Paragraph 23 of N.G. Projects is also of relevance and the same
reads as follows:
Page 29 of 32

‘ 23. In view of the above judgments of this Court, the writ court should
refrain itself from imposing its decision over the decision of the
employer as to whether or not to accept the bid of a tenderer. The
Court does not have the expertise to examine the terms and conditions
of the present day economic activities of the State and this limitation
should be kept in view. Courts should be even more reluctant in
interfering with contracts involving technical issues as there is a
requirement of the necessary expertise to adjudicate upon such issues.
The approach of the Court should be not to find fault with magnifying
glass in its hands, rather the Court should examine as to whether the
decision-making process is after complying with the procedure
contemplated by the tender conditions. If the Court finds that there is
total arbitrariness or that the tender has been granted in a mala fide
manner, still the Court should refrain from interfering in the grant of
tender but instead relegate the parties to seek damages for the
wrongful exclusion rather than to injunct the execution of the contract.
The injunction or interference in the tender leads to additional costs
on the State and is also against public interest. Therefore, the State
and its citizens suffer twice, firstly by paying escalation costs and
secondly, by being deprived of the infrastructure for which the present
day Governments are expected to work. ’
(underlining made by this Court for ease of reference)

As regards tender jurisdiction, as would be evident from
underlined part of paragraph 23, it has been held that even if the Court finds
that there is total arbitrariness or that the tender has been granted in a malafide
manner still the Court should refrain from interfering in the grant of tender but
instead relegate the parties to seek damages for wrongful exclusion rather than
injuncting execution of work. Therefore, we respectfully follow N.G. Projects
caveat and we are not inclined to grant interim order until Hon’ble Single Bench
Page 30 of 32

disposes of the WP as sought for. As the option to raise all these points in the
WP has been turned down by learned counsel for appellant, it has become a
case of Hobson’s choice for this Court to deal with the matter on merits and we
are doing so.
[16] As regards issue of SCN, it is evident that the complaint of writ
appellant is primarily against R4 and the NsIT Clauses do not provide for issue
of SCN. It cannot be gainsaid that a detailed enquiry of sorts should be held by
State (Employer) as between 2(two) bidders who have competing business
interests. As Employer which is embarking upon public projects, more
particularly, constructions of roads under Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yoyana
and only approved contractors registered with PWD Manipur can participate this
argument does not cut ice with this Court.
[17] We also noticed, as already alluded to supra, that the project is
under CSS(Centrally Sponsored Scheme) where 90% of the funds are provided
by Central Government to State of Manipur unlike other States where usually
50 % is provided by the Central Government. In this case, this Court is informed
that the total project cost is Rs. 638 crores, State of Manipur has also made its
10% contribution and this Court is also informed that 30.09.2026 is the cutoff
date failing which the funds will lapse. Constructions of roads, more so in the
State of Manipur is clearly a public project of immense significance and
therefore, this Court unhesitatingly comes to the conclusion that it would not
be in public interest to interfere.
Page 31 of 32

[18] Be that at it may, we find no infirmity or any error in the impugned
order made by Hon’ble Single Bench as Hon’ble Single Bench has made it clear
that Part-II (Financial Bid) should be opened only after the writ appellant’s
complaint dated 03.09.2026 should be considered for resolution before opening
Part-II.
[19] As regards the preliminary point raised by Mr. N. Jotendro, learned
Senior Advocate, as we are not interfering in the instant/captioned intra Court
appeal i.e., WA we leave open the question for Hon’ble Single Bench to decide
when the main WP is heard out.
[20] Ergo, the sequitur is captioned WA fails and the same is dismissed.
Consequently, captioned MC thereat also perishes with the main WA and the
same is also dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.





JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE

FR/NFR
Sandeep/Indrajeet


P.S. I : Upload forthwith
P.S. II : All concerned will stand bound by web copy uploaded in
High Court website inter alia as the same is QR coded.


Digitally signed by
LAIRENMAYUM
INDRAJEET SINGH
Date: 2026.09.18
14:42:54 +05'30'
LAIRENMAYU
M INDRAJEET
SINGH
Page 32 of 32