Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Megh) 98
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
H. S. Thangkhiew, J
Firstbornson Lyngkhoi – Appellant
Versus
State of Meghalaya – Respondent
WP(C) No. 166 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: T. Sutnga, A. Ksoo
For the Respondents: A. Kumar, T. Yangi B, J.N. Rynjah, G. Syngkrem
The state is constitutionally bound to ensure transparency, fairness, and equal opportunity when allocating public contracts. Arbitrary, non-transparent selection of private parties for public works, without adhering to formal tender procedures, violates fundamental principles of administrative law and governance.
Headnote:(A) Constitutional Law - Public Contracts - Allocation of work without transparency - Dispensation of public largesse - Requirement of competitive bidding - Necessity to follow established procedures to ensure equality of opportunity and prevent arbitrariness - Obligation of the state to avoid personal discretion or bias in administrative actions. (Paras 10, 11)
(B) Administrative Law - Judicial Review - Scope of court’s power to examine executive action in public works - Determination of the validity of a selection process for contractors - Need for objective standards and reasoned decision-making in public procurement to ensure accountability and fairness. (Paras 10, 11)
Facts of the case:
A registered government contractor challenged the state’s decision to award public road construction projects to specific individuals without following a formal tender process or public notification. The state defended the allocation, citing urgent necessity due to an upcoming local event and reliance on third-party recommendations. The project was completed while the litigation was pending, leading to the petitioner seeking redress for the bypass of standard procedures.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the state acted in a non-transparent, arbitrary manner by selecting contractors without public advertisement. Documentation revealed contradictions in the state’s justification, indicating that selection was made prior to the stated source of authority. The court emphasized that the state must adhere to well-defined, objective rules when distributing public contracts to prevent bias and ensure equal opportunity.
Issues: Whether the state can bypass established tender procedures for public works based on claims of urgency and whether such arbitrary allocation of contracts violates the principles of non-arbitrariness and public accountability.
Ratio Decidendi: The state is constitutionally mandated to dispense public largesse through transparent, competitive processes. Deviation from established tender norms must be backed by documented, objective justifications. The failure to follow due process, regardless of whether the work is eventually completed, constitutes a violation of the requirement for fairness, equality, and accountability in administrative conduct. (Para 11)
Result: Writ petition closed and disposed of; costs awarded to the petitioner to be paid by the state and the selected contractors for the procedural irregularity.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. requirement of transparency and due process in awarding public works contracts despite claims of emergency. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. judicial assessment of procedural fairness and the validity of state claims regarding urgency in contract allocation. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 3. constitutional mandate under article 14 for transparency and non-arbitrariness in distributing public largesse. (Para 11) |
| 4. court's discretionary power to award costs when procedural violations are established despite work completion. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No
Law journals etc:
ii) Whether approved for publication Yes/No
in press:
JUDGMENT AND ORDER(ORAL)
1. The writ petitioner a registered Class-I Government contractor under the Public Works Department being aggrieved with the action of the respondent No. 5, in commencing the execution of a public road construction work for the “Improvement of the existing road including MBT of New Nongstoin to Nongstoin Village” including different link roads within Nongstoin in the month of October, 2024, without any approved sanction order or Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) is before this Court assailing the same.
2. Ms. T. Sutnga, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in October, 2024 on coming to learn that road construction activities were being undertaken along the stretch from New Nongstoin to Nongstoin Village under the PWD (Roads) Nongstoin Division, the petitioner had sought information under the RTI Act on 14.10.2024. In reply thereto she submits, it was explicitly stated no sanction had been issued, nor was any NIT floated. Thereafter, she submits the petitioner came across a letter dated 27.03.2025, whereby it was revealed that administrative approval and sanction for construction and improvement of different link roads at Nongstoin Village, were approved only in the month of March, 2025, for an amount of Rs. 6,82,26,100/- (Rupees Six Crores Eighty-Two Lakhs Twenty-Six Thousand and One Hundred) only for the period of 2024-25.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner then submits that the respondents had acted illegally and arbitrary, inasmuch as, without the publication of a Notice Inviting Tender, the execution and commencement of the work had started in October, 2024 itself, prior to the receipt of administrative approval and sanction. The work she submits had been allotted with a mala fide intention to the respondents Nos. 6 to 13, in an oblique and un-transparent manner. It is further submitted that the petitioner has the right to participate in government contract works being a registered Class-I contractor, and the action of the respondents in favouring the selected persons without due process being followed in public matters, is illegal and arbitrary. The learned counsel has also contended that Courts have the power to review government actions including those related to infrastructure projects, to ensure that they are lawful and fair.
4. In the instant case she submits, though the work in question was in relation to a congregation that was to be held by the Nongstoin Church, the manner in which local contractors were selected was totally arbitrary and in violation of established procedures. The learned counsel has then referred to the additional affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner to show that though the respondents had produced a letter which reflected that the selection of contractors was on the basis of a letter issued by the Balang Presbyterian, Nongstoin dated 19.09.2024, however the undertaking for the construction as annexed to the affidavit of the State respondents, had already been signed and submitted by the contractors on 16.09.2024, which was prior to the date of the letter of the Church. She therefore, submits that the manner and conduct of the State respondents with regard to the suggestion and recommendation, clearly shows that the allocation of work was done in a collusive manner and on extraneo
