JUDGMENT : 1. Director, Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs, Kashmir (respondent no.2) issued the E-Tender Notice no.07 of 2017 dated 8th March 2017, for hiring of the transport for carriage of the food grains of the department in respect of the Kashmir Division for the year 2016-17 and 2017-18 from the open market. In the first phase of the process only two tenderers responded to the tender notice; as a sequel to that, the respondent no.2 solicited the necessary clarifications from the Department of Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs, Civil Secretariat (respondent no.1) to proceed further in the matter. By letter no.DFCS& CA / Acctts/ Tender (Transport)/134/2017 dated 27th April 2017, the respondent no.2 was instructed to extend the tender period by further ten days to ensure a healthy competition through electronic/print media. In the second phase, E-Tenders in the Double Cover System were invited through the respondent no.2, from the Reputed and Registered Transport Firms/Companies, for providing of the Trucks (HCVs/LCVs) Districtwise in Kashmir Province for 2017-18 and 2018-19, for the transportation of the food grains to various destinations in the Valley vide E-Retender Tender Notice no.104 of 2017, bearing endorsement no.DFCS&CAK/Adm/GS-37/Genl/17/16 dated 1st May 2017. The last date for submission of the bids/ tenders was fixed as 22nd May 2017, which comprised of two stages, viz. Technical Bid and Financial Bid. The Technical Bid was to be opened on 24th May 2017 and the Financial Bid on 25th May 2017. 2. M/s Ladakh Road Lines (petitioner here); M/s Iqbal Transport Service (respondent no.4 here); and M/s Vikas Transport Company, responded to the aforesaid tender notice. The Financial bid was opened on 25th May 2017 and the following rates of commission were offered to the respondent department for the rates fixed by the J&K State Road Transport Corporation: (i) M/s Iqbal Motors Transport Service : 32.60 (ii) M/s Ladakh Road Lines : 15.84 (iii) M/s Vikas Transport Company : 15.95 3. The Financial bid was opened on 25th May 2017 and the following rates of commission were offered to the respondent department for the rates fixed by the J&K State Road Transport Corporation: (i) M/s Iqbal Motors Transport Service : 32.60 (ii) M/s Ladakh Road Lines : 15.84 (iii) M/s Vikas Transport Company : 15.95 3. The respondent no.4 was found the successful tenderer; as a corollary to which, sanction was accorded to the allotment of the contract for hiring of the transport for carriage of the food grains of the respondent department of the Kashmir Division for the year 2017-18 and 2018-19 in terms of NIT Notice no.07 of 2017 dated 8th March 2017 in favour of M/s Iqbal Motor Transport Service (respondent no.4) with a direction to the respondent no.2 to issue the formal allotment order in favour of the said firm after assessment of its fleet and in light of the terms and conditions laid down in the aforesaid NIT. A formal allotment order bearing no.672-FCS&CAK of 2018 dated 31st March 2018, was passed by the respondent no.2 in favour of the respondent no.4. 4. The petitioners in both the writ petitions (OWP nos. 632/2018 and 785/2018) are aggrieved of the allotment orders. A formal allotment order bearing no.672-FCS&CAK of 2018 dated 31st March 2018, was passed by the respondent no.2 in favour of the respondent no.4. 4. The petitioners in both the writ petitions (OWP nos. 632/2018 and 785/2018) are aggrieved of the allotment orders. The petitioner in OWP no.632/2018 beseeches the following relief: (a) Writ of certiorari, quashing the Government Order no.89-FCS&CA of 2018 dated 27th March 2018 and Order no.672-FCS&CA of 2018 dated 31st March 2018, issued by the respondents 1&2 as well as the process of opening of the Technical Bid and the Financial Bid of the respondent no.4, for the allotment of the work of providing of the Trucks (HCVs/LCVs) Districtwise in Kashmir Province for 2017-2018 and 2018-2019; (b) Writ of mandamus, commanding the respondents to evaluate the financial bid of the petitioner according to the law and on his making the grade, allot the work to the petitioner as he is the next in line; or in alternative consider the objections of the petitioner as also the complaint with regard to the opening of the Technical Bid and the Financial Bid of the respondent no.4, for the allotment of the work of providing of the Trucks (HCVs/LCVs) Districtwise in Kashmir Province for 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 as per the directions of the Court afresh and until the matter is so enquired into or investigated, not to allot the contract of providing of Trucks (HCVs/LCVs) Districtwise in Kashmir Province for 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 to the respondent no.4 or to any one else; (c) Contempt proceedings be also initiated against the respondents 1, 2 and 5 for flouting the directions of the Court, in exercise of the powers vested in the Court under Section 94 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir. 5. The petitioner corporation in OWP no.785/2018 has implored the following relief: (a) Writ of certiorari, quashing the impugned tender notice – Annexure P1 and order of allotment – Annexure P2; (b) Writ of mandamus, commanding the respondents to forebear from giving effect to the tender notice contained in Annexure P1 and the order of allotment Annexure P2; (c) Writ of mandamus, commanding the respondents to adhere to the mandate of law contained in SRO 157 of 2001 and utilize the truck fleet of the petitioner-corporation for carrying the goods from their godowns to different stations in the State. 6. 6. Reply has been filed by the respondents in both writ petitions, fervently counterattacking the writ petitions. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the matter. 8. Mr M. A. Qayoom, the learned counsel representing the petitioner in OWP no.632/2018, in order to bolster the case set up by the petitioner, has stoutly argued that the petitioner applied for the allotment of the work and furnished all the necessary details in his tender document. The petitioner not only provided the work experience and experience certificate strictly in accordance with clause 39(a) to (d) of the tender documents and the details of the tender document, but also furnished the list of the trucks with proper registration number duly authenticated by the competent authority. The certificates of attachment of vehicles by the Regional Transport Officer, Srinagar and Assistant Regional Transport Officer, Ganderbal, were also submitted with the tender documents. He has also insisted that the respondent no.4, who responded to the tender notice, was also supposed to provide the necessary information as stipulated in the tender notice and the detailed document, but he did not do so. The respondent no.4 had submitted a list of 26 vehicles, which were owned by him, but the same was not attested by the transport authorities. The work experience and experience certificate, it is maintained, were not completed in the manner as was required to be done. Learned counsel also avers that as per clause 39, which provides for work experience and experiencer certificate, the tenderer was required to have at least five years’ experience of transportation duly obtained from manufacturers/PSU/ government department/ public limited company/private limited company dealing in the field of fertilizers/food grains, cement, sugar, coarse grains or any other commodity. The tenderer was required to have executed in any of the immediate preceding five years the work of the value and the tender participating bidder must have minimum fleet of 50 heavy commercial vehicles. The respondent no.5 had not produced any certificate of experience for the year 2014-15 and instead he had produced a certificate for the year 2010-2011, which could under no circumstances be taken into account because it was outside the limit of preceding five years prescribed by the tender notice. The respondent no.5 had not produced any certificate of experience for the year 2014-15 and instead he had produced a certificate for the year 2010-2011, which could under no circumstances be taken into account because it was outside the limit of preceding five years prescribed by the tender notice. The official respondents not only opened the technical bid of the respondent no.4 but also opened the financial bid and they have shown the respondent no.4 to have made the grade for award of contract. It is pleaded that when the technical bid was opened by the respondents, the petitioner brought it to the notice of the official respondents that he is not eligible to participate in the tender process or opening of technical bid. The respondent does not have a fleet of minimum 100 duly attached trucks and has tried to mislead the authorities. Even if the respondent no.4 had a turnover of more than Rs.50.00 crores for the last five years but as in terms of the tender notice, it was required that the turnover during the last one year exclusively on account of goods carriage through truck should not be less than 10.00 crore accrued in a year for the last five years, therefore, irrespective of the fact that he had a turnover of Rs.50.00 crores, his tender had not been taken into account because he had not produced any document indicating the turnover of the last preceding five years, which was a requirement of the tender notice. It is also averred that the complaint filed by the petitioner did not evoke any response, forcing him to file a writ petition, being OWP no.731/2017 before this Court, in which an order dated 31st May 2017 was passed directing maintaining of status quo with respect to E-Retender Tender Notice. It is stated that the said writ petition was disposed of vide judgment dated 16th March 2018, with a direction to the official respondents to take a final decision on the representation/complaint filed by the petitioner against the decision of the official respondents declaring the respondent no.4 technically qualified to participate in the financial bid. The decision so taken was directed to be squared off within a period of four weeks. The decision so taken was directed to be squared off within a period of four weeks. It was also directed that while taking the decision on the representation/complaint of the petitioner the official respondents would be well within their right to consider as to whether the petitioner, who was declared qualified in the technical bid along with the respondent no.4 was also technically qualified to participate in the price bid or not. After passing of the order dated 16th March 2018, the petitioner moved one more representation before the respondent no.1, accompanied by all the relevant documents. The learned counsel claims that without considering the representation/complaint of the petitioner, the respondents have issued the impugned orders of allotment in favour of the respondent no.4. 9. Further assertion of Mr Qayoom is that the respondent no.1, before passing the impugned order dated 27th March 2018, was required to consider the representations of the petitioner and provide an opportunity of being heard to him inasmuch as the respondent no.1 has not undertaken any exercise to find out as to whether the allegations levelled by the petitioner in the two representations and the complaint were based on facts or not. The respondent no.1, simply on the basis of some affidavit filed by the respondent no.4, has come to an erroneous conclusion that firstly he had no past or present criminal record with the police/ vigilance/enforcement department of the J&K Government / Government of India and that he had not been blacklisted by the Civil Supplies Corporation/any other Government organisation at any time or was involved in diversion of stocks. He also asserts that the respondent no.2 has issued the impugned order dated 31st March 2018 without assessing as to whether the respondent no.4 has any fleet of the trucks available with him or not and/or as to whether those are the same trucks, which he had mentioned in the list when he submitted his tender and it is, thus, obvious that the respondents 1&2 have not gone into the allegations levelled by the petitioner against the respondent no.4. According to the learned counsel the impugned orders are tinctured with mala fide and colourable exercise of power and none of the grounds raised by the petitioner in his representations/ complaints have been considered by the respondents 1&2 while passing the impugned orders. According to the learned counsel the impugned orders are tinctured with mala fide and colourable exercise of power and none of the grounds raised by the petitioner in his representations/ complaints have been considered by the respondents 1&2 while passing the impugned orders. He, in support of his submissions, has placed reliance on Tata Cellular v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 11 ; Sterling Computers Ltd. V. M/s M&N Publication Ltd. & others, AIR 1996 SC 51 ; Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa and others (2007) 14 SCC 517; A.S.Motors Private Limited v. Union of India and others, (2013) 10 SCC 114 ; Parbodh Sagar v. Punjab State Electricity Board and others AIR 2000 SC 1684 ; Michigan Rubber (India) Limited v. State of Karnataka and others (2012) 8 SCC 216 ; and JSW Infrastructure Limited and another v. Kakinada Seaports Limited and others (2017) 4 SCC 170 . 10. Mr Altaf Haqani, the learned counsel representing the petitioner (J&K State Road Transport Corporation) in OWP no.785/2018, has strenuously stated that the impugned E-Retender Notice as also the impugned allotment orders have been issued without approaching the petitioner Corporation for utilization of their truck fleet and without applying for or obtaining No Objections Certificate from it. He has enounced that the authority of all the government departments / undertakings in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, is regulated by the Rules contained in SRO 157 of 2001. By virtue of the said Rules all government departments/undertakings are required to utilise the services of the truck fleet available with the J&K SRTC in meeting their requirements of vehicles and to invariably obtain no objection certificate from the petitioner Corporation before hiring of trucks from the open market. The aforesaid SRO has been issued by the Government of Jammu and Kashmir in exercise of powers under Section 67(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The tender notice, according to the learned counsel, is in violation of the authoritative pronouncement made by this Court in a writ petition, being OWP no. 1106/2017 dated 23rd January 2018. In terms of the said judgment, this Court has held that SRO 157 of 2001 incorporates the rule of law, which is binding on the government departments/undertakings. The tender notice, according to the learned counsel, is in violation of the authoritative pronouncement made by this Court in a writ petition, being OWP no. 1106/2017 dated 23rd January 2018. In terms of the said judgment, this Court has held that SRO 157 of 2001 incorporates the rule of law, which is binding on the government departments/undertakings. SRO 157 makes it abundantly clear that all government departments/undertakings shall utilize the services of fleet of the trucks owned by the J&K SRTC in meeting the requirements of vehicles and shall invariably obtain no objection certificate (NOC) from the petitioner corporation before hiring of the trucks. He maintains that in view of the aforesaid judgment, the tender notice is completely bereft of any legal sanctity, being in violation of the Statute and is without lawful authority. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 has sturdily insisted that in fact the petitioner – Ladakh Road Lines, did not adhere to the conditions enumerated in the tender document inasmuch as the petitioner submitted a list of 27 owned vehicles and list of additional owned vehicles in which the petitioner repeated the registration number of owned vehicles. Otherwise also the petitioner was in no way a lowest one. He claims that the respondent no.4 undoubtedly qualified the technical bid and was lowest in the financial bid. The respondent no.4 has given the rebate of 32.60% on approved rates fixed by the J&K SRTC whereas the petitioner has offered only 15.84%. Moreover, as per the conditions 17 and 12 of the tender document, the Government / Departmental Purchase-cum-Contract Committee reserves the right either to accept or reject any tender without assigning any reason thereto including the lowest tenderer and if the information furnished in technical bid at any stage is found false/incorrect, the bidder shall be liable for disqualification. The learned counsel also claims that the requisite experience certificate has been submitted by the respondent no.4 and he qualified the technical bid as well as was the higher in financial bid. The learned counsel also claims that the requisite experience certificate has been submitted by the respondent no.4 and he qualified the technical bid as well as was the higher in financial bid. To support his submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance on Paddar Steel Corporation v. Ganesh Engineering Works and others (1991) 3 SCC 272, to contend that minor technical irregularities can be waived and it will be open to the authority to deviate from and not to insist upon the strict little compliance of the condition in appropriate cases and that in the present case even the minor technicality has not been projected in appropriate way. He also states that the representation/complaint of the petitioner was taken due care as was mandated by this Court and after consideration of the same, a speaking order was passed. The allegations raised by the petitioner were found baseless and untrue. As regards blacklisting of the respondent no.4, an affidavit was submitted wherein it was stated that the firm has not any past or present criminal record. According to learned counsel, another representation was submitted on 27th April 2018 during consideration of earlier representation as per the directions passed by this Court in OWP no.731/2017. The subsequent representation was considered and in fact the petitioner appeared in person before the respondents, as such, he cannot deny that he had not been in the knowledge of the disposal of the representation inasmuch as filing of another representation dated 27th April 2018 itself confirms the presence of the petitioner before the respondent no.1. Since public interest was involved in supplying of food grains, expediting the matter and finish it off was in fact need of hour. Its lingering on technicalities would have very adverse effect and would be prejudicial to the public interest. The learned counsel further insists that the allegations levelled were bald in nature and otherwise also the official respondents were not required to initiate a separate inquiry as the same was not the mandate of the judgment. Regarding the allegation of the petitioner that the respondent no.4 does not own proper number of vehicles, the same is, according to the learned counsel, also untrue as the vehicles stand inspected and apart from departmental check-up, a committee was also constituted for the purpose. Regarding the allegation of the petitioner that the respondent no.4 does not own proper number of vehicles, the same is, according to the learned counsel, also untrue as the vehicles stand inspected and apart from departmental check-up, a committee was also constituted for the purpose. Moreover, the respondent no.4 has been supplying the requisite number of vehicles on the daily basis since the date of contract till the date stay orders were passed by this Court. 12. Learned counsel, representing the respondent no.4 (M/s Iqbal Motors Transport Service), to controvert what has been averred and stated by Mr Qayoom, representing the petitioner in OWP no. 632/2018, have insisted that the respondent no.4 has earned the impugned allotment order on the edifice of it being a successful tenderer. Before the legal formalities could have been finalised by the respondent department with the respondent no.4, the petitioner – M/s Ladakh Road Lines, preferred a writ petition, bearing OWP no.731/2017 before this Court and sought passing of stay and resultantly the contract could not commence owing to stay passed by this Court on 31st May 2017. The said writ petition was disposed of on 16th March 2018. In compliance thereof, the Government of J&K State considered and examined the complaint and the grievances of the petitioner and by a reasoned order rejected the complaint of the petitioner. According to the learned counsel, the respondent no.4 has executed the formal agreement/contract with the respondent department and the contract is concluded inasmuch as the respondent no.4 has made the trucks available to the respondent department for carriage of the food grains to various destinations. To eke out the fact of making trucks available to the respondent department, the learned counsel for the respondent no.4 have invited attention of this Court to the statements showing lifting/dispatches of the rice (Annexure R-III & R-IV to the Reply in OWP no.632/2018). It is contended that the petitioner has now again invoked the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court recapitulating the same averments that had been reiterated by him in earlier writ petition (OWP no.731/2017). The learned counsel have iterated that the petitioner is guilty of fraud as the list of attached vehicles submitted by him after seeking confirmation have been proved to be false. The learned counsel have iterated that the petitioner is guilty of fraud as the list of attached vehicles submitted by him after seeking confirmation have been proved to be false. It is vehemently stated by the learned counsel that the food grains are to be carried and transported in trucks and not in petrol tankers, water tankers, load carriers or tippers. The list of vehicles attached with the writ petition, after seeking its verification from the concerned statutory authority, proved as fake. To reinforce this argument the learned counsel for the respondent no.4 have taken this Court to the communication dated 30th June 2017 (Annexure R-V to the Reply). The learned counsel have thence stated that writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The learned counsel for the respondent no.4, to buttress their submission, have relied upon Tata Cellular v. Union of India (supra); Purushottam Kumar Jha v. State of Jharkhand and others (2006) 9 SCC 458 ; Michigan Rubber (India) Limited v. State of Karnataka and others (2012) 8 SCC 216 ; Ratnagiri Gas and Power Private Limited v. RDS Projects Limited and others (2013) 1 SCC 524 ; Bakshi Security and Personnel Services Private Limited v. Devkishan Computed Private Limited and others (2016) 8 SCC 446 ; Central Coalfields Limited and another v. SLL-SML (Joint Venture consortium) and others (2016 ) 8 SCC 622; Sam Built Well Private Limited v. Deepak Builders and others (2018) 2 SCC 176 . 13. As regards writ petition (OWP no.785/2018), the learned counsel for the respondent no.4 have argued that the petitioner Corporation is a government pervasive executive and it is controlled by the J&K State Government and therefore cannot file the writ petition to seek annulment of any action of the State; for that matter the petitioner Corporation has to sort it out with its principals and the intervention of this Court in writ proceedings is not permissible when no right of the petitioner Corporation is involved. The learned counsel have also insisted that prior to moving the writ petition on hand, the petitioner corporation had filed a Letters Patent Appeal, bearing no.LPAOW no.17/2018. Therein they threw challenge to the judgment rendered by the Single Bench in OWP no.731/2017. However, on 24th April 2018, the petitioner corporation withdrew the said LPA. The learned counsel have also insisted that prior to moving the writ petition on hand, the petitioner corporation had filed a Letters Patent Appeal, bearing no.LPAOW no.17/2018. Therein they threw challenge to the judgment rendered by the Single Bench in OWP no.731/2017. However, on 24th April 2018, the petitioner corporation withdrew the said LPA. The learned counsel have also invited attention of this Court to the Government Order no.200-FCS&CA of 2016 dated 14th December 2016 (Annexure D to Reply in OWP no.785/2018), authorising the respondent department to hire the private vehicles on the competitive basis from the open market through e-tendering for carriage of the food grains/ sugar being handled by the department, only after utilization of fleet of vehicles owned by the State Road Transport Corporation. The petitioner Corporation – a government agency – is pointing finger upon the action of the Government, which in the wisdom of execution function has been found feasible and beneficial for the interest of public. The petitioner corporation ought to have challenged the Government Order no.200-FCS&CA of 2016 dated 14th December 2016, but not having challenged the same, it cannot raise any objection on the strength of SRO 157, which is also issued by the order of the Government of J&K. The cabinet decision under the Business Rules takes precedence and cannot be challenged by an entity who is subservient to the Government. The Government Order no.200-FCS&CA of 2016 dated 14th December 2016 provides for utilization of the fleet of the vehicles owned by the petitioner corporation, but, as claimed by the learned counsel for the respondent no.4, the petitioner corporation is not possessed with adequate number of trucks of their own, and more particularly it hires the same from the open market that too from a particular transport company viz. Ladakh Motor Transport Service. The learned counsel have further contended that the petitioner corporation is not pleading the execution of SRO 157 for any professed purpose or for the interest of corporation because the petitioner corporation itself is not possessed with sufficient number of fleet and to benefit a transport company of their choice, it has been issuing the tenders notices inviting offers for supply of vehicles. Tendring process set in motion by the petitioner Corporation vide tender notice dated 13th November 2017 was postponed, but later on a fresh tender notice was issued on 6th April 2018. Tendring process set in motion by the petitioner Corporation vide tender notice dated 13th November 2017 was postponed, but later on a fresh tender notice was issued on 6th April 2018. The said process has been challenged before this Court in a writ petition, bearing OWP no.676/2018, and a Bench of this Court by the order dated 24th April 2018 has granted the interim order against the petitioner corporation. The learned counsel while furthering their arguments, have invited attention of this Court to the communications (Annexure N, O and Q to Reply in OWP no.785/2018) to contend that entreating enforcement of SRO 157 by the petitioner corporation is just a ploy to muster support to Ladakh Road Lines and save its officers because the petitioner corporation is already under the vigil and surveillance inasmuch as the Vigilance Organisation Kashmir and Crime Branch, Kashmir, are investigating the contracts given by the petitioner corporation to Ladakh Road Lines on less commission and without tender. They in support of their submissions have placed reliance on R&M Trust v. Koramangala Residents Vigilance Group and others, (2005) 3 SCC 91 ; State of Manipur and others v. Y. Token Singh and others, (2007) 5 SCC 65 ; Commissioner of Customs (Port), Chennai v. Toyota Kirloskar Motor (P) Ltd (2007) 6 SCC 731; Oil & Natural Gas Corpn. Ltd v. City & Industrial Development Corporation, Maharashtra Ltd and others (2007) 7 SCC 39 ; Rajkamal Builders v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and others (2009) 1 SCC 497 ; and Ratnagiri Gas and Power Private Limited v. RDS Projects Limited and others (2013) 1 SCC 524 . 14. Though the learned counsel for the parties have referred to and relied upon the various judgements, yet the discourse herein after will set at rest the controversy in hand, without touching those citations because it will also avoid prolixity. 15. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the record on the file, it transpires that for transportation of food grains, a tender notice bearing no.07 of 2017 dated 8th March 2017 was issued by the respondent no.2. Due to poor response, fresh tender notice was issued bearing E-Retender Tender Notice no.104 of 2017, bearing endorsement no.DFCS&CAK/Adm/GS-37/ Genl/17/16 dated 1st May 2017, was issued. Three tenderers responded thereto. Due to poor response, fresh tender notice was issued bearing E-Retender Tender Notice no.104 of 2017, bearing endorsement no.DFCS&CAK/Adm/GS-37/ Genl/17/16 dated 1st May 2017, was issued. Three tenderers responded thereto. M/s Ladakh Road Lines has offered rebate of 15.84 % on the approved rates fixed by the J&K SRTC, whereas the respondent no.4 has offered 32.60%. So, the respondent no.4 was declared a successful tenderer. Dissatisfied with the declaration of the respondent no.4 (M/s Iqbal Motors Transport Service) as a successful bidder, M/s Ladakh Road Lines groused some gravamen because according to the petitioner – Ladakh Road Lines, the evaluation made by the Technical Bid Committee, which had declared the respondent no.4 qualified to participate in the financial bid, was not correct inasmuch as the respondent no.4 was not eligible to participate in the further tendering process as it was not technically qualified and did not meet the requirements laid down in clause 2 of the tender document, laying down “scope of contract” because, as maintained by the petitioner – Ladakh Road Lines, the respondent no.4 did not have a fleet of 25 HCVs of minimum load 9 MTS owned by it with valid documentary proof nor did the respondent no.4 wa possessed of 100 fleet HCVs attached with its own fleet. The representation / complaint made by the petitioner – Ladakh Road Lines, did not evoke any response, forcing him to file a writ petition, bearing OWP no.731/2017, titled M/s Ladakh Road Lines v. State of J&K and others, beseeching following relief: (a) Writ of certiorari, quashing the process of pending of Technical Bid and the Financial Bid of the respondent no. 4for the allotment of the work of providing of trucks (HCVs/LCVs) District-wise in Kashmir province for 2017-2018, be quashed. (b) Writ of mandamus, commanding the respondents to allot the work to the petitioner, as he is the next in line, or in the alternative consider the objections of the petitioner as also the complaint with regard to the opening of Technical Bid and the Financial Bid of the respondent No.4, for the allotment of work of providing of Trucks (HCV’s/LCV’s) District-wise in Kashmir province for 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 and until the matter is so enquired into or investigated, not to allot the contract of providing of Trucks (HCV’s/LCV’s) District-wise in Kashmir province for 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 to anyone including respondent No.4. 16. 16. A Bench of this Court by judgment dated 16th March 2018 disposed of OWP no.731/2017. It observed that as the parties raised disputed questions of fact, it was not in a position to decide such questions. Whether the petitioner or for that matter the respondent no.4 had actually complied with the mandatory terms and conditions of the contract, was better left to be decided by the experts associated in the evaluation of the bids. The Court also said that since the official respondents had not yet accepted the bid of the respondent no.4 and the representation made by the petitioner was under consideration, it would not be proper for it to decide the merits of the contentions raised by the parties. Certain adages of the Court in the judgment dated 16th March 2018, are instructive to be reproduced infra: “15. The scope of interference by this Court in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction in contractual matter is now fairly well defined and there is, thus, no scope for admitting any ambiguity therein. The government or its instrumentality can be subject to judicial review to prevent arbitrariness or favouritism on its part. Needless to say that the Government or the tendering authority is well within its power to lay down certain preconditions or qualifications to ensure that the contractor has the capability and financial capacity and resources to successfully execute the contract. There is also no dispute with regard to the proposition that all conditions in the contract are not the mandatory conditions required to be complied with strictly in all situations. The terms and conditions forming the contract could be broadly classified into mandatory conditions of the contract and ancillary conditions of the contract. The conditions which are core to the contract and relate to the capability, capacity and resources of bidder are indisputably mandatory conditions of the contract as these are meant to ensure successful execution of the contract. There may be certain ancillary terms and conditions in the contract, strict adherence to which may not be insisted upon. The waiver or deviation from such conditions is always the discretion of the tendering authority, though such discretion has to be exercised in a fair, transparent and non-partisan manner. 16. There may be certain ancillary terms and conditions in the contract, strict adherence to which may not be insisted upon. The waiver or deviation from such conditions is always the discretion of the tendering authority, though such discretion has to be exercised in a fair, transparent and non-partisan manner. 16. In the backdrop of this legal position, I am not fully in agreement with the argument of learned counsel for the respondents that since the matter involved in this petition pertains to the realm of contract and, therefore, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this petition. Wherever, it is required to prevent arbitrariness or favouritism by the State in the matter of entering into contract with its citizens, this Court would step in to remedy such situation by exercising the power of judicial review. In the instant case, the dispute has arisen at the threshold of the contract and therefore, in view of the law laid down in the case of Noble Resources (supra), the power of judicial review is more intrusive. However, the questions which have been raised by the petitioner as also the respondent No.4 are disputed questions of fact. Therefore, this Court may not be in a position to decide such questions. Whether the petitioner or for that matter respondent No.4 have actually complied with the mandatory terms and conditions of the contract is better left to be decided by the experts associated in the evaluation of the bids. In view of the stand of the official respondents that they have not yet accepted the bid of respondent No.4 and that the representation made by the petitioner highlighting lack of respondent No.4’s eligibility to participate in the financial bids is under consideration, it would not be proper for this Court to decide the merits of the contentions raised by the petitioner and the respondents. It is the positive case of the petitioner that all the deficiencies in the tender document of respondent No.4 have been highlighted by it in detail in the representation/complaint filed by it with the official respondents. The official respondents in their objections have not denied this assertion of the petitioner and have rather stated that the representation of the petitioner is under consideration.” 17. The annotations, above parroted, were followed by squaring off the case with the following directions: “17. The official respondents in their objections have not denied this assertion of the petitioner and have rather stated that the representation of the petitioner is under consideration.” 17. The annotations, above parroted, were followed by squaring off the case with the following directions: “17. In these circumstances, this Court feels that interest of justice would be met by directing the official respondents to dispose of the representation filed by the petitioner and stated to be pending consideration by a speaking order in a time bound manner. 18. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of by providing as under:- (a) The official respondents shall take a final decision on the representation/complaint filed by the petitioner against the decision of the official respondents declaring respondent No.4 technically qualified to participate in the financial bid. The decision, as aforesaid, shall be taken by the official respondents within a period of four weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is received by them. (ii) While taking decision on the representation/ complaint of the petitioner the official respondents shall be well within their right to consider as to whether the petitioner who was declared qualified in the technical bid alongwith respondent No.4 was also technically qualified to participate in the price bid or not. The decision to be taken by the official respondents would be by way of a speaking order to be conveyed to the petitioner as well as respondent No.4. (iii) Further decision with regard to award of contract to the eligible lowest bidder shall depend upon the consideration as directed above. (iv) The official respondents shall, however, be at liberty to re-tender the contract in question, if none of the bidders who had responded to the e-tender are found to be eligible to execute the contract or the official respondents otherwise feel such course to be in public interest.” 18. In terms of the judgment dated 16th March 2018, passed in OWP no. 731/2017, the official respondents were directed to take a final decision on the representation/complaint filed by the petitioner against the decision, declaring the respondent no.4 technically qualified to participate in the financial bid. The decision qua the award of the contract to the eligible lowest bidder would depend upon such consideration. 19. 731/2017, the official respondents were directed to take a final decision on the representation/complaint filed by the petitioner against the decision, declaring the respondent no.4 technically qualified to participate in the financial bid. The decision qua the award of the contract to the eligible lowest bidder would depend upon such consideration. 19. It appears that for physical verification of the fleet of the trucks of the respondent no.4, for carrying the food grains of the respondent department, a Committee was constituted by the respondent no.2. The said Committee conducted the verification of the owned and hired trucks of M/s Iqbal Motors Transport Service – respondent no.4, on 30th and 31st March 2018 at various spots including Gulab Bagh, Shaheed Gunj Godowns, Parimpora Truck Terminals and Lethapora. The learned counsel for the respondents have, during the course of arguments, produced the report of the Committee constituted for physical verification of the fleet of the trucks of the petitioner, which, at request, is taken on record. The said physical verification report is accompanied by two lists: one is with respect to those vehicles, physically verified by the Committee, which are owned by the respondent no.4; and the second is regarding those vehicles, which have been hired by the respondent no.4. The respondent no.1 is shown to have owned 27 vehicles and hired 172 vehicles for fulfilment of the contract in question. Therefore, it is only after the physical verification of the fleet of the trucks for carrying of food grains of the respondent department that the impugned allotment orders have been issued by the respondent department. The plea of the petitioner that the respondent no.1 does not possess the required fleet of the trucks for carriage of the food grains, has been taken care of and dealt with by the respondent department meticulously and cautiously. Be that as it may, the gravamen groused by the petitioner that the respondent no.4 did not fulfil the prerequisites required in terms of the tender notice, has been redressed. This Court, while passing the judgment dated 16th March 2018 in OWP no.731/2017 titled M/s Ladakh Road Lines v. State of J&K and others, has made it clear that this Court cannot decide the disputed questions of fact vis-à-vis compliance of terms and conditions of the contract as it is better left to be decided by the experts associated in the evaluation of the bids. It was keeping in view the said position that this Court directed the official respondents to take a final decision on the representation/complaint of the petitioner. The official respondents have complied with the directions passed by this Court in OWP no.731/2017 and constituted a Committee, which physically verified the fleet of the trucks of the petitioner and it was found that the respondent no.4 possess the fleet of trucks as was one of the important conditions of the tender notice. Be that as it may, the official respondents have complied with and implemented the judgment dated 16th March 2018 passed by this Court in OWP no.731/2017, in letter and spirit. This, therefore, clinches the whole controversy raised by the petitioner in OWP no.632/2018. 20. The judicial review is a developing subject. Its scope varies from case to case. It is considered to be a basic feature of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has, in a catena of judgments, defined the outline of the sovereign power, as vested in the three pillars of the Government, that are the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary. The Supreme Court, while interpreting the meaning of ‘judicial review’, said that the power of the ‘judicial review’ is, however, confined not merely to deciding whether in making the impugned laws, the Central or the State Legislatures have acted within the four corners of the legislative lists earmarked for them; the Courts also deal with the question as to whether the laws are made inconformity with and not in violation of the other provisions of the Constitution. As long as some fundamental rights exist and are a part of the Constitution, the power of judicial review has also to be exercised with a view to see that the guarantees afforded by those rights, are not contravened. Review has, thus, become an integral part of our constitutional system and a power has been vested in the High Courts and the Supreme Court to decide about the constitutional validity of the provisions of the Statutes. If the provisions of the Statute are found to be violative of any Article of the Constitution, which is the touchstone for the validity of all laws, the Supreme Court and the High Courts are empowered to strike down the said provisions. 21. If the provisions of the Statute are found to be violative of any Article of the Constitution, which is the touchstone for the validity of all laws, the Supreme Court and the High Courts are empowered to strike down the said provisions. 21. The law also provides that the correctness of the reasons that prompted the Government to take a decision and take one course of action instead of the other, is not a matter of concern in the judicial review and the Court is not the appropriate forum for conducting such investigations. The scope of the judicial review has to be confined to find out whether the Government decision was against the statutory provisions or violative of the fundamental rights of the citizens of the State. 22. It is well settled that judicial review of administration action is intended to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, bias and mala fides. Its purpose is to check whether choice or decision is made ‘lawfully’ and not to check whether choice or decision is ‘sound’. When the power of judicial review is invoked in matters relating to tenders or award of contracts, certain special features should be borne in mind. A contract is a commercial transaction. Evaluating tenders and awarding contracts are essentially commercial functions. Principles of equity and natural justice stay at a distance. If the decision relating to award of contract is bona fide and is in public interest, courts will not, in exercise of power of judicial review, interfere even if a procedural aberration or error in assessment or prejudice to a tenderer, is made out. The power of judicial review will not be permitted to be invoked to protect private interest at the cost of public interest, or to decide contractual disputes. The tenderer or contractor with a grievance can always seek damages in a civil court. Attempts by unsuccessful tenderers with imaginary grievances, wounded pride and business rivalry, to make mountains out of molehills of some technical/procedural violation or some prejudice to self, and persuade courts to interfere by exercising power of judicial review, should be resisted. Such interferences, either interim or final, may hold up public works for years, or delay relief and succour to thousands and millions and may increase the project cost manifold. Such interferences, either interim or final, may hold up public works for years, or delay relief and succour to thousands and millions and may increase the project cost manifold. The Apex Court, has, in a chain of judgments, repeated and reiterated the principle that the fixation of a value of the tender is entirely within the purview of the executive and the courts hardly have any role to play in this process except for striking down such action of the executive as is proved to be arbitrary or unreasonable. If the Government acts in conformity with certain healthy standards and norms such as awarding of contracts by inviting tenders, in those circumstances, the interference by the courts is very limited. In the matter of formulating conditions of a tender documents and awarding a contract, greater latitude is required to be conceded to the State authorities unless the action of the tendering authority is found to be malicious and a misuse of its statutory powers, interference by courts is not warranted. If the State or its instrumentalities act reasonably, fairly and in public interest in awarding contract, interference by court is very restrictive since no person can claim a fundamental right to carry on business with the Government. [See: Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa (supra); and Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd v. State of Karnataka (supra)]. 23. For all what has been discussed and done above, the writ petition, bearing OWP no.632/2018 lacks in merit and is accordingly dismissed along with connected MP(s). Interim direction if any shall stand vacated. 24. Now remains the writ petition, bearing OWP no.785/2018, which has been filed by the J&K State Road Transport Corporation on the edifice of SRO 157 dated 26th April 2001. Before proceeding ahead in the matter it is germane to reproduce relevant portion of SRO 157 hereunder: “SRO 157. In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-Clause (i) of clause (d) of Sub-Section (i) of Section 67 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Central Act 50 of 1988), the Government of Jammu and Kashmir hereby direct that for para (a) of Notification SRO 344 dated 10th December, 1988m, read with Notification SRO 230 dated 17th July, the following shall be substituted, newly:- 3. To bring the State Government Department / Undertakings outside the purview of the State Transport Authority freight structure with the stipulation that a committee headed by the Managing Director JK State Road Transport Corporation shall fix freight rates on yearly basis in respect of their own fleet for carriage of goods destination-wise. All Government Departments/ Undertakings shall utilize the services of truck fleet available with J&K State Road Transport Corporation in meeting their requirement of vehicles and shall invariably obtain no objection certificate from J&K State Road Transport Corporation before hiring of trucks from the open market.” 25. SRO 157 says that the petitioner Corporation shall be fixing the freight rates on yearly basis and the government departments/undertakings shall utilize the services of “truck fleet available with J&K State Road Transport Corporation” in meeting their requirement of vehicles. It however, needs, must be mentioned here that SRO 157 also provides that “no objection certificate” can be obtained from the petitioner Corporation “before hiring of trucks from the open market”. The first task, thus, assigned in terms of SRO 157 to the petitioner Corporation is to fix the freight rates/structure yearly. The second task, that has been assigned to the government departments/ undertakings, is to “utilize the services of truck fleet available with J&K State Road Transport Corporation in meeting their requirement”. Nevertheless, SRO 157 does not conclude and end here as it envisages obtaining of “no objection certificate from J&K State Road Transport Corporation before hiring of trucks from the open market”. Therefore, while the government departments/ undertakings are required to utilize the truck fleet of the petitioner Corporation, they, in the event the truck fleet is not available with the petitioner Corporation, can hire the trucks from the open market, ostensibly, subject to obtaining the no objection certificate from the petitioner corporation. So, what is deducible from SRO 157 is that there is no bar in hiring the trucks from the open market, as has been done by the respondent department in the present case. The action and process set in motion by the respondent department that culminated in issuance of tender notice and allotment orders is not bad in the eye of law or for that matter in violation of SRO 157. 26. The action and process set in motion by the respondent department that culminated in issuance of tender notice and allotment orders is not bad in the eye of law or for that matter in violation of SRO 157. 26. Another important aspect of the matter is that a Government order bearing no.200-FCS&CA of 2016 dated 14th December 2016 was issued by the Government of Jammu and Kashmir through Department of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, Civil Secretariat, Jammu, after the J&K State Cabinet took a Decision vide no.106/11/2016 dated 9th December 2016, to hire private vehicles on competitive basis from open market through e-tendering for carriage of food grains/sugar, being handled by the respondent department, only after utilization of vehicles owned by the State Road Transport Corporation. The aforesaid Government order has not been challenged by the petitioner Corporation, therefore, the doctrine of acquiescence squarely applies to the petitioner corporation. The tender notice and allotment order in favour of respondent no.4 is culmination of the aforesaid Government order dated 14th December 2016, and therefore the same was already a fait accompli. 27. A communication bearing no.FCS&CADK/Adm/Law-791 dated 20th December 2017 (Annexure H to Reply of respondent no.4), addressed by the respondent no.2 to Additional Advocate General, has knocked the bottom out of the case of the petitioner corporation. It unequivocally says that the respondent department is suffering due to paucity of adequate number of trucks being provided by SRTC per day and that the SRTC also hires trucks from open market as they do not possess adequate number of trucks of their own, which could suffice the need of the respondent department. The respondent department is undertaking an important task and responsibility of transportation of food grains/ sugar; it should have fleet of trucks instantaneously readied and available with it. The above communication, however, portrays the predicament that the respondent department had been facing; as a sequel thereto, it proceeded ahead with the tendering process in view of Government Order no.200-FCS&CA of 2016 dated 14th December 2016, and made allotment in favour of the respondent no.4. Better it would have been for the petitioner corporation, being the instrumentality / undertaking of the State, to take up the matter with the Government instead of knocking at the portals of this Court with the writ petition on hand. Better it would have been for the petitioner corporation, being the instrumentality / undertaking of the State, to take up the matter with the Government instead of knocking at the portals of this Court with the writ petition on hand. Under the scheme of the Constitution, Article 131 confers the original jurisdiction on the Supreme Court in regard to a dispute between two States of the Union of India or between one or more States and the Union of India. It was not contemplated by the framers of the Constitution that two departments of a State or the Union of India will fight a litigation in a court of law. It is neither appropriate nor permissible for two departments of a State to fight litigation in a court of law. Indeed, such a course cannot be but detrimental to the public interest as it also entails avoidable wastage of the public money and time. Various departments of the Government are its limbs and therefore, they must act in coordination and not in confrontation. Filing of a writ petition by one department against the other by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court is not only against the propriety and polity as it smacks of indiscipline but is also contrary to the basic concept of law which requires that for suing or being sued, there must be either a natural or a juristic person. The State must evolve a mechanism to set at rest all interdepartmental controversies at the level of the Government and such matters should not be carried to a court of law for resolution of the controversy. 28. In the backdrop of all that has been said and done above, the writ petition (OWP no.785/2018) sans merit. It entails dismissal and is, accordingly dismissed along with connected MP(s). Interim direction, if any shall stand vacated.