The Gauhati High Court has asked the state government that if any change in the scope of the work in the Lengpui Airport is to be undertaken by the Government, the same should be informed to this Court by the next date.
The Aizawl Bench of Justice Michael Zothankhuma and Justice Marli Vankung heard a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking direction to the respondents to ensure that the improvement/up-gradation of operational/non-operational facilities of Lengpui Airport should be carried out by using only top quality materials, so as to ensure that the collapse of the concrete slab that occurred earlier is not repeated in the future.
At the outset, J.C Lalnunsanga, counsel for the respondent No. 5 submits that besides the affidavit filed by the respondent No. 5 (Construction Firm) , regarding the issue of trolleys to be used at the Airport, the respondent No. 5 will not be filing any other affidavit and will rely upon by the affidavit filed by the State respondents.
D. Das, Advocate General is granted 4 (four) weeks time by the High Court to file an affidavit, with regard to the reason as to why a restricted tender was issued and whether the restricted tender pertained only to the State or was it published nationwide.
The affidavit of the State Government should also clarify as to whether a Structural Engineer had approved the DPR. The DPR and the approval of the DPR by the Structural Engineer order should be given to this Court. Besides the above, the records pertaining to the issue of the restricted tender and the selection of the respondent No. 5 as the successful tenderer should be produced before the Court , the Bench further directed.
It has also been stated at the bar that besides the respondents (three) other Contractors have been selected for renovation of the Airport. The particulars of the 3 (three) Contractors, the estimate of the works to be done by them, the manner in which the works have been allotted to them and the percentage of the work done should also be furnished. Besides the above, the original records in respect of all the above issues should be produced before this Court on the next date.
In terms of the last Order dated 21.09.2023, the Court had recorded that “an officer of the State PWD, well conversant with the subject should be present in the Court to respond the queries of the Court whenever necessary”. However, no one is present on behalf of the PWD. Accordingly, the concerned Superintendent Engineer, PWD shall be present in the Court on the next date.
“In this regard, Mrs. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Government Advocate shall inform the Engineer-in-Chief, PWD, Government of Mizoram, to ensure that the concerned Superintendent Engineer is present on the next date. Further, if any change in the scope of the work in the Airport is to be undertaken by the Government, the same should be informed to this Court by the next date. List the matter on 11.12.2023”, the order reads.