JUDGMENT Laxmi Kanta Mohapatra, CJ. 1. WP(C) No. 465 of 2014 has been filed by the Tangkhul Naga Contractor Long (Association), Ukhrul represented through its Secretary for a direction to the respondent Nos-2 and 3, that is, Commissioner Rural Development and Panchayati Raj, Govt. of Manipur and the Chief Engineer, Manipur State Roads Development Agency (MSRRDA) not to issue any acceptance letter or work order for the PMGSY Phase IX, IX(ii) in favour of the respondent No. 5. 2. WP(C) No. 538 of 2014 has been filed by the successful contractor namely S.K. Redeem Kharay (respondent No. 5 in WP(C) No. 465 of 2014) for issuance of acceptance letter and work order for the above work in Phase-IX and IX(ii). Since both the writ petitions are inter-linked, on consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, these writ petitions are taken up for hearing at the stage of admission and are disposed of in this common order. 3. A notice was issued by the Addl. Chief Engineer, MSRRDA on 24.5.2013 putting a condition that those contractors who cannot complete PMGSY Phase VI & Phase VII works on the date of NIT of PMGSY Phase-IX will not be allowed to participate in Phase-IX tender. When the advertisement was issued for the Phase-IX work inviting tenders, the petitioner in WP(C) No. 538/2014 submitted his tender. At that stage, before acceptance of the tender and issuance of work order, a writ application was filed by the Association (Petitioner in WP(C) No. 465 of 2014) before this Court. The said writ petition was registered as WP(C) No. 81/2014. When the matter was listed before the learned Single Judge, it was contended that S.K. Redeem Kharay, petitioner in WP(C) No. 538 of 2014 having not completed the work in Phase VI by the time the advertisement was issued for Phase-IX, he was not competent to submit his tender. The writ application was disposed of on 2.4.2014. The direction contained in the order is quoted below: In view of the above position, this court is of the view that the present writ petition can be disposed of with the direction to respondent Nos. The writ application was disposed of on 2.4.2014. The direction contained in the order is quoted below: In view of the above position, this court is of the view that the present writ petition can be disposed of with the direction to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to examine and verify whether respondent No. 4 had completed PMGSY phase-VI works as on the date of issue of NIT for Phase-IX works and on verification if it is found that he has not completed PMGSY Phase VI works, he will not be entitled to take part in the tender process in respect of either of Phase-VIII(II) or Phase-IX tender, much less of awarding any work order in his favour. It goes without saying that if any person who has the knowledge of completion of phase VI work he may submit necessary representation to the enquiry committee so constituted by the authorities to verify the work of the Respondent No. 4. With the above observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. 4. In compliance of the above direction, an enquiry was conducted and it was found that the said S.K. Redeem Kharay had not completed the work in phase VI by the time the advertisement for phase IX was issued. Therefore, the Association has filed WP(C) No. 465/14 to implement the said order passed by the learned Single Judge and on the basis of the enquiry a further direction is sought for not to issue any acceptance letter in favour of said SK Redeem Kharay. 5. Mr. A. Mohendro, learned counsel appearing for the Association (Petitioner in WP(C) No. 465/14) submitted that in view of the restriction put in the notice dt. 24.5.2013 referred to earlier, Shri SK Redeem Kharay was not competent to submit his tender for phase-IX under PMGSY, he having not completed the contract work in phase VI by the time tenders were invited for the work in phase-IX. 6. Mr. M. Devananda, learned counsel appearing for Mr. SK Redeem Kharay, petitioner in WP(C) No. 538/14 and respondent No. 4 in WP(C) No. 81/14, submitted that due to several reasons the work in phase VI got delayed, but by the time the advertisement for Phase IX was issued, he had completed phase VI work. 6. Mr. M. Devananda, learned counsel appearing for Mr. SK Redeem Kharay, petitioner in WP(C) No. 538/14 and respondent No. 4 in WP(C) No. 81/14, submitted that due to several reasons the work in phase VI got delayed, but by the time the advertisement for Phase IX was issued, he had completed phase VI work. Much reliance has been placed on several documents annexed to WP(C) No. 536 of 2014 to substantiate submission with regard to delay in execution of the work in phase-VI. 7. From the counter affidavit filed in WP(C) No. 465 of 2014 by respondent Nos-3 and 4 therein, it appears that the work in phase VI was in progress and had not been completed. From Annexure-C/2 to the said counter affidavit, it appears that in compliance of the earlier order passed by the learned Single Judge an enquiry was conducted and it was pointed in the report that the status of the work is "in progress" and not "completed" as reflected earlier. From Annexure-C/3 of the counter affidavit, it also appears that the percentage of work completed is 90% approximately. Therefore, upon enquiry it was found that Shri SK Redeem Kharay had not completed the work in phase-VI by the time the advertisement for phase-IX was issued inviting tender. There may be good reasons for the delay in execution of the works so far phase-VI is concerned, but Court cannot overlook the fact that work order in phase VI was issued in 2008 and it was not competed for considerable length of time in spite of the fact that it was supposed to be completed within 18 months. Even accepting the submission of Shri Devananda, learned counsel for the SK Redeem Kharay that several difficulties were faced by the contractor in completing the work, the documents referred to above clearly prove that he had not completed the work of Phase-VI by the time the advertisement was issued for phase-IX inviting tender. Therefore, in view of the restriction imposed in the notice dt. 24.5.2013, he was not competent to submit his tender for phase IX. 8. Mr. Devananda, learned counsel raised question of maintainability of WP(C) No. 465/14 on the ground that the Association cannot maintain a writ application having not participated in the bid meant for phase VI or phase IX. It was further contended by Mr. 24.5.2013, he was not competent to submit his tender for phase IX. 8. Mr. Devananda, learned counsel raised question of maintainability of WP(C) No. 465/14 on the ground that the Association cannot maintain a writ application having not participated in the bid meant for phase VI or phase IX. It was further contended by Mr. Devananda that in the earlier writ application, i.e. WP(C) No. 81 of 2014 though he was made party, by the time he got Vakalatnama for appearance, writ application was disposed of and S.K. Redeem had no occasion to raise the question of maintainability of the earlier writ application. Though from the record of WP(C) No. 81/2014 it appears that notice was issued to said SK Redeem Kharay by registered post by order dated 5.2.2014, it further appears that notice was issued to him by registered post from the office on 22.2.2014. The case was disposed of on 2.4.2014. Therefore, the service of notice on him is presumed to have served by the time the writ petition was disposed of. Moreover, the earlier writ petition having been entertained or orders passed, question of maintainability of this writ application at this stage cannot be entertained. 9. For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that the restriction imposed in the notice dt. 24.5.2013 debars the petitioner, SK Redeem Kharay in WP(C) No. 538 of 2014 in submitting his tender for PMGSY phase IX, he having not completed the PMGSY phase VI work by the time advertisement was issued inviting tender for phase-IX. Accordingly, writ petition (C) No. 465/2014 is allowed and WP(C) No. 538/2014 is dismissed.