Authority: Gauhati High Court (High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh)

Order Date: 31.07.2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners:
  • R Rokima (Class‑I contractor, Reg. No. 51/E‑in‑C‑1/2022)
  • Smt. Lallianzovi, Proprietor of C.L Enterprise (Reg. No. 125/E‑in‑C‑1/2022)
  • Sh. Vanlalsanga (Class‑II contractor, Reg. No. 100/CE‑R/II/2014)
  • Sh. Harvey Lalrinliana (Class‑II contractor, Reg. No. 83/CE‑R/II/2014)
  • Smt. Lalrovi (Class‑I contractor, Reg. No. 68/E‑in‑C‑1/2022)
  • Respondents: State of Mizoram represented by the Chief Secretary and five officials (Principal Secretary – Finance, Secretary – Public Works, Engineer‑in‑Chief PWD, Superintending Engineer PWD Central Circle, Secretary – Ministry of Finance, Public Finance – State Division).
  • Linked writ petitions: WP(C)/30/2024, WP(C)/32/2024, WP(C)/33/2024, WP(C)/34/2024, WP(C)/35/2024.
  • Background: The Office Memorandum dated 15.02.2024 (Finance Dept.) directed re‑examination of SASCI Part‑I projects after the first installment of Rs 266.69 crore (≈53% of Rs 500 crore approved) was received just before the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) for the 2023 Mizoram Legislative Assembly election. The memorandum instructed selection of works within approximately 51.88% of the approved amount.
  • The Public Works Department issued an Order on 27.03.2024 revising the estimates for the contractors, reducing contract values by 21.32% to 48.79% of the original amounts and modifying the Bill of Quantities. Contractors were asked to sign supplementary agreements, which they refused.
  • The contractors had been allotted work under Restricted Tender No. 4/2023‑2024 (issued 22.09.2023) based on SASCI approval communicated on 21.08.2023. Letter of Acceptance was issued on 04.10.2023; the Model Code of Conduct was announced on 13.10.2023, delaying commencement. Agreements were signed on 05/06.12.2023 (except one on 05.10.2023).
  • Petitioners argued the reduction was arbitrary, violated Articles 14, 19 and 300A of the Constitution, and that the State had breached SASCI guidelines by delaying fund release.
  • State respondents contended the reduction was necessary due to financial shortage, the MCC‑induced delay, and the need to prioritize projects under the “Year of Consolidation” announced by the new government. They cited Clause 12 of the contract allowing the Engineer‑in‑Charge to alter specifications and the contractual dispute‑review mechanism.
  • Both sides relied on several Supreme Court precedents (Harbanslal Sahnia, M.P State Agro Industries, Union of India v. Tantia Construction, Empire Jute, Jagdish Mandal, Kerala State Electricity Board, Tata Cellular).

Final Outcome

  • The Court held that the writ petitions were not maintainable under Article 226; the dispute falls within the arbitration clause and contractual remedies.
  • All five writ petitions were dismissed; each party was ordered to bear its own costs.
  • The petitioners were directed to pursue arbitration or claim damages in a civil court for any grievances.

Topics: Public Procurement, Contract Dispute