Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 31342/2025, arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 01-09-2025 in WA No. 36/2024 passed by the High Court of Meghalaya at Shillong.
Court: Supreme Court of India.
IA No. 276539/2025 – Permission to file additional documents/facts/annexures.
Hearing date: 26-05-2026.
No specific period of violation/dispute mentioned.
Parties Involved
Petitioner: Meghalaya Power Generation Corporation Ltd (MEPGCL).
Respondents: Odimar Syiemsad & Ors.
Respondent No. 1: Unsuccessful bidder (contestant not appearing before the Court).
Respondent No. 2: Party to whom the contract has been granted.
Counsel for Petitioner: Avijit Mani Tripathi (AOR), Z.H. Isaac Haiding (AOR), Adv. T.K. Nayak, Adv. Marbiang Khongwir, Adv. Aditya Kumar.
Counsel for Respondent(s): Aditi Tripathi, Shuain Hussain (AOR).
Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pamidighantam, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sri Narasimha, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Aradhe.
Issues / Allegations / Violations
Dispute over the execution of a contract awarded to respondent no. 2 and the compensation of Rs 21,59,242 awarded to respondent no. 1 (the unsuccessful bidder).
Interpretation of the interim order dated 10‑11‑2025, specifically whether it effected a stay of execution of the contract and/or the compensation.
Findings & Observations
The Court observed that no party appeared on behalf of the contesting respondent no. 1 (the unsuccessful bidder).
The interim order dated 10‑11‑2025 shall not be understood to mean a stay of execution of the contract; therefore, the contract granted to respondent no. 2 may proceed pending disposal of the Special Leave Petition.
The Court expressly ordered a stay of the compensation of Rs 21,59,242 awarded in favour of respondent no. 1.
Penalties / Settlements / Directions
Stay of Compensation: Rs 21,59,242 awarded to respondent no. 1 is stayed.
Contract Execution: The contract awarded to respondent no. 2 may continue to be executed while the petition is pending.
Corrective Actions & Future Obligations
Parties must comply with the stay on the compensation payment.
The contract awarded to respondent no. 2 should be implemented in accordance with the original terms, subject to any further orders of the Court.
Final Ruling & Enforcement
The Court’s order clarifies that the interim order does not halt contract execution but does stay the compensation payment.
The matter is listed for further hearing on 14‑08‑2026.
No additional enforcement measures beyond the stay and continuation of contract execution were stipulated.
