JUDGMENT :

Heard Ms. Neiteo Koza, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Imti Imsong, learned Addl. Advocate General for the State respondent No. 1 to 5. Also heard Mr. C.T Jamir, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. I. Imchen for the respondent No.6.

2. The present petition has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus/certiorari or any appropriate writs for quashing and setting aside the Work Order No. CAWD/TRSY/2019-2020 (CHOZUBA) dated 05/10/2021 issued by the Executive Engineer (CAWD), Office of the Commissioner Nagaland, Kohima, allotting the work for construction of Sub-Treasury Office with Bank at Chozuba under Phek District to the respondent No. 6.

3. The facts of the case as can be gathered from the submissions and pleadings of the parties is that vide the letter No. FIN/TA/GEN/5-181/20 dated 28/05/2021 written by the Government of Nagaland, Finance Department (Treasuries & Accounts Branch) to the Principal Director, Directorate of Treasuries & Accounts, Nagaland, Kohima (respondent No.2), the administrative approval for construction of the Sub-Treasury Office building with SBI Branch at Chozuba under Phek District amounting to Rs. 2,97,26,285/-was sanctioned by the Finance Department with the clearance of the Planning & Co-ordination Department. The work was accordingly awarded to the respondent No.6 by issuing the work order dated 05/10/2021 stipulating the terms and conditions of the contract.

4. Impugning the work order dated 05/10/2021, Ms. Neiteo Koza, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) was floated by the respondent authorities before awarding the work to the respondent No. 6 but the work was discreetly awarded to the said respondent by depriving the petitioner and others who had submitted their letters of interest to execute the work. Ms. Neiteo Koza submitted that the petitioner has been facilitating the sanctioning of the project considering that the Office proposed to be constructed was running from a rented house. It is submitted that pursuant to the Government conveying the administrative approval according sanction for construction of the work, the petitioner wrote the letter dated Nil to the respondent No.2 for allotment of the work. The respondent No.2 in turn by letter dated 22/10/2021 forwarded the application submitted by the petitioner to the Executive Engineer Estate Division, PWD (Housing), Kohima for necessary action. The case of the petitioner for allotment of the work was also supported by the Phesao clan of Chozuba-Yoruba village, the landowners of the proposed site, through the representation dated Nil addressed to the respondent No.2. Ms. Neiteo Koza, the learned counsel for the petitioner has then taken this Court to the order dated 17/08/2017 and submits that in view of the re-structuring of the civil works under the respondent No.3 and CAWD, it has been decided that the respondent No.3 will look after the civil works of different department including that of the Treasuries & Accounts and therefore, it is the respondent No.3 and not the respondent No.5 who is the competent authority to allocate the work and therefore, the work order dated 05/10/2021 issued by the respondent No.5 to the respondent No. 6 is without authority and ex-facie illegal. The learned counsel has further referred to the “Manual for Procurement of Works’’ (Updated June 2022), issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance Department of Expenditure, more particularly to Chapter-1 of the said Manual which inter-alia provides Introduction to Procurement of Works and also to the General Financial Rules 2007 more particularly to Rule 136(1) which provides that no works shall be commenced or liability incurred unless the conditions specified in the rule has been fulfilled. It is the case of the petitioner that none of the conditions provided for, in the Manual and the rule has been complied with before allotting the work to the respondent No.6.

5. I