Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 307 (JK)

Rishi Dutt v. State of J&K

2019-06-04

SANJEEV KUMAR

body2019
JUDGMENT : Sanjeev Kumar, J. 1. The order of respondent No. 5 issued vide No. APMCN/Gate-Entry/2018-19/1673-75 dated 28.03.2009 whereby the offer extended to the petitioner for Gate Entry Fee Collection Contract of Fruit and Vegetable Market Narwal, Jammu for the year 2019-20 has been cancelled and the earnest money deposit of the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/- has been forfeited, is subject matter of challenge in this petition. The petitioner has also challenged the consequent allotment of the contract made in favour of respondent No. 6 vide Order No. AN/Gate-Entry/2018-19/1690-92 dated 30.03.2019. 2. The factual matrix relevant for understanding the controversy in this petition in proper perspective may be desirable. The respondent No. 3, through a Notice Inviting Tender issued under the signature of respondent No. 4 bearing No. NIT No. 66 of 2018-19 dated 26.02.2019 invited tenders for and on behalf of the Governor of J&K State through e-tendering mode from the interested parties/firms/persons for awarding the contract of Gate Entry Fee Collection at Gate Plaza of Fruit and Vegetable Market, Narwal, Jammu for the year 2019-20. Rupees two crores plus GST as applicable in the J&K State was the minimum reserve bid fixed by the respondent No. 3. Apart from the other terms and conditions of the NIT, following were some of the terms and conditions, which in the context of controversy raised in this petition, are of significance:- (1) The minimum reserve bid/offer is Rs. 2,00,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crore only) plus GST as per applicable in the J&K State which is to be paid in two equal instalments one within 05 days after the bidder is declared successful and the second instalment within four months from the date of entering into the contract in the competent court. The successful bidder will submit the postdated cheques of second instalment along with Bank Guarantee of second instalment with first instalment. (2) The offer shall be accompanied with earnest money of Rs. 5.00 Lacs (Rupees Five Lacs only) in the shape of CDR/FDR pledged in favour of Chief Executive APMC Narwal, Jammu. (3) In case of dispute between the parties the matter shall be referred to DAM J&K Govt, for arbitration and the decision of DAM shall be final and binding upon all. 5.00 Lacs (Rupees Five Lacs only) in the shape of CDR/FDR pledged in favour of Chief Executive APMC Narwal, Jammu. (3) In case of dispute between the parties the matter shall be referred to DAM J&K Govt, for arbitration and the decision of DAM shall be final and binding upon all. (4) If the successful bidder fails to fulfill the terms and conditions the committee has the right to forfeit the CDR and the amount deposited by the contractor. (5) If the successful contractor fails to pay the amount in two equal instalments, within the stipulated time or the cheques given by the contractor are not honoured/encashed for any reasons whatsoever, the contract shall be deemed to have been terminated and in this regard no notice will be served and further the amount paid by the contractor in the form of CDR or any advance shall stand forfeited. The entry-exit points shall be taken over by the APMC and in such eventuality the contractor shall have no right or lien to claim the amount so paid by him and seek the revival of the agreement/contract and the contractor shall be liable to indemnify the department of the financial loss suffered on account of the breach of the contract and if the department suffers the loss on account of getting the contract completed from any other contractor/persons, the same shall be done at the cost and the risk of the contractor who breaches the contract. 3. The petitioner along with the respondent No. 6 and few others responded to the NIT. As per the schedule indicated in the NIT, the final date of receipt of the tenders was 11.03.2019 upto to 1630 hours and date of opening of the tenders was fixed on 12.03.2019 at 1400 hours. Accordingly, the technical bids were opened on 12.03.2019 and on the next date, i.e., on 13.03.2019, the financial bids were also opened. As claimed by the respondents, there were four bids/tenders uploaded on the website of the respondents. The petitioner was, however, found to be the first highest bidder, who had offered an amount of Rs. 2,19,01,100/- only. 4. The respondent No. 4 vide his communication No. APMCN/Gate-Entry/2018-19/1645-48 dated 22.03.2019 intimated the petitioner that his bid has been found to be the highest by the Tender Opening Committee headed by the Director Horticulture Planning and Marketing, Jammu. The petitioner was, however, found to be the first highest bidder, who had offered an amount of Rs. 2,19,01,100/- only. 4. The respondent No. 4 vide his communication No. APMCN/Gate-Entry/2018-19/1645-48 dated 22.03.2019 intimated the petitioner that his bid has been found to be the highest by the Tender Opening Committee headed by the Director Horticulture Planning and Marketing, Jammu. The petitioner was, thus, called upon to deposit all the requisite documents, tender application fee, earnest money, pan number, GST number etc. He was also asked to deposit 50% of the bid amount in the shape of demand draft amounting to Rs. 1,09,50,550/- only as first instalment within 05 days and also postdated cheques worth Rs. 1,09,50,550/- only on account of second (final instalment) plus GST amount on the total bid amount along with Bank Guarantee subject to which a formal agreement with the Department/APMC was to be entered. Responding to the aforesaid communication, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 1,09,50,550/- as the first instalment in the account of APMC maintained with the J&K Bank, Narwal, Jammu. The petitioner also submitted original documents with the Department, but, the petitioner could not simultaneously submit the Bank Guarantee with regard to the second instalment, though he claims that he offered post-dated cheques representing the second instalment on 26.03.2019 itself. It appears that on the expiry of 05 days period given to the petitioner, the respondents convened a meeting of the Tender Opening Committee on 27.03.2019 at 5 PM in which the Committee taking note of the failure of the petitioner to fulfill the conditions of submitting Bank Guarantee and post-dated cheques with regard to the second instalment of bid amount decided to declare the highest bid offered by the petitioner as defective and liable to be cancelled. Accordingly, a decision in this regard was taken as is contained in the Minutes of Meeting dated 27.03.2019. As claimed by the petitioner, he visited the office of respondent No. 3 on 28.03.2019 to submit the post-dated cheques for the payment of second instalment and Bank Guarantee, but, the same was not accepted by the respondent No. 3 on the ground that his bid had been cancelled by the Tender Opening Committee in its meeting held on 27.03.2019. As claimed by the petitioner, he visited the office of respondent No. 3 on 28.03.2019 to submit the post-dated cheques for the payment of second instalment and Bank Guarantee, but, the same was not accepted by the respondent No. 3 on the ground that his bid had been cancelled by the Tender Opening Committee in its meeting held on 27.03.2019. The petitioner claims that no order of cancellation of the offer of petitioner was ever issued to the petitioner till 8 PM on 28.03.2019 when the petitioner got a whatsapp message that vide communication impugned, the offer of the petitioner had been declared as defective and hence cancelled. 5. In the backdrop of the aforesaid factual matrix, the petitioner has filed the instant petition challenging the impugned communication issued by the respondent No. 5 inter alia on the following grounds:- (i) That the order impugned is illegal and arbitrary on the face of it and therefore, cannot sustain in the eyes of law; (ii) That the petitioner was called upon to deposit the 50% of the bid amount as first instalment and post-dated cheques representing the second instalment along with Bank Guarantee for the amount of the second instalment within five days only on 22.03.2019. The petitioner completed the aforesaid formalities within 05 days provided to him and therefore, the cancellation of his bid on 27.03.2019 was highly unjustified and uncalled for. It is urged that 05 days' time, which was given to the petitioner to complete the requisite formalities would and should mean 05 clear working bank days. The 23rd of March, 2019 and 24th of March, 2019 being bank holidays were, thus, required to be excluded from computation of 05 days given to the petitioner to complete the formalities aforementioned. The petitioner completed the requisite formalities on 28.03.2019 and therefore, within time stipulated in NIT as also the communication dated 22.03.2019. (iii) That the order impugned is actuated by mala fide considerations for the cancellation of the bid of the petitioner was only with a view to accommodate respondent No. 6, who was a Contractor with the respondents during the last financial year. 6. Writ petition has been contested by the official respondents as well as respondent No. 6. (iii) That the order impugned is actuated by mala fide considerations for the cancellation of the bid of the petitioner was only with a view to accommodate respondent No. 6, who was a Contractor with the respondents during the last financial year. 6. Writ petition has been contested by the official respondents as well as respondent No. 6. In the reply affidavit filed by the official respondents, the stand taken is that the petitioner could complete the requisite formalities as stipulated in the terms and condition of No. 1 of the NIT only on 28.03.2019, though, he was intimated and called upon to do the needful on 22.03.2019. In terms of the stipulation contained in the NIT as condition No. 1 as also the communication of the respondents dated 22.03.2019, the petitioner was supposed to deposit the first instalment of the bid in the shape of demand draft within a period of 05 days after he was declared successful and the second instalment within a period of four months from the date of entering into contract in the competent Court. He was also supposed to submit the post-dated cheques of second instalment along with Bank Guarantee of the second instalment along with first instalment. The petitioner, however, failed to do the needful within the stipulated period and, therefore, by operation of condition No. 16 of the NIT, his earnest money CDR was forfeited and his offer was declared defective and cancelled. Reliance is also placed by the official respondents on Condition No. 19 of the terms and conditions. 7. A separate reply affidavit has been filed by the respondent No. 6 in which respondent No. 6 has resisted the claim of the petitioner inter alia on the ground that the scope of judicial review in the contractual matters is limited only to examining whether the decision making process is vitiated by any illegality, procedural irregularity or perversity, and while sitting in judicial review jurisdiction, this Court does not sit in appeal over the decision of the executive so long as the process leading to the decision is found to be satisfactory and free from one of the infirmities mentioned above. Placing reliance upon several decisions of the Supreme Court on the subject, respondent No. 6 submits that the dispute raised by the petitioner cannot be made subject matter of adjudication in judicial review jurisdiction of this Court vested under Article 226 of the Constitution. The respondent No. 6 also refutes the plea of the petitioner that 05 days' time given to the petitioner should be taken as the period of 05 working days and since 02 out of 05 days given to him were banking holidays and therefore, the time of the petitioner was to expire on 29.03.2019. It is urged that accepting the plea of the petitioner would amount to re-writing the terms and conditions of the contract and substituting in the contract something, which is not stipulated in it. 8. The petitioner has also filed rejoinder to rebut the stand of the official respondents as well as respondent No. 6. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, it is necessary to first deal with the objection of the respondents with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition and restrictive scope of judicial review in the contractual matters. 10. The scope of judicial review in the matter of Government contracts is undoubtedly limited and well defined by the judicial precedents, which are abound in the law journals. The judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651 may be taken as locus classicus in which the Supreme Court has elaborately dealt with the issue. The paragraph No. 94 of the judgment which is heavily relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 6 is reproduced here under:- "94. The principles deducible from the above are : (1) The modem trend points to judicial restraint in administrative action. (2) The court does not sit as a court of appeal but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made. (3) The court does not have the expertise to correct the administrative decision. If a review of the administrative decision is permitted it will be substituting its own decision, without the necessary expertise which itself may be fallible. (4) The terms of the invitation to tender cannot be open to judicial scrutiny because the invitation to tender is in the realm of contract. If a review of the administrative decision is permitted it will be substituting its own decision, without the necessary expertise which itself may be fallible. (4) The terms of the invitation to tender cannot be open to judicial scrutiny because the invitation to tender is in the realm of contract. Normally speaking, the decision to accept the tender or award the contract is reached by process of negotiations through several tiers. More often than not, such decisions are made qualitatively by experts. (5) The Government must have freedom of contract. In other words, a fair play in the joints is a necessary concomitant for an administrative body functioning in an administrative sphere or quasi-administrative sphere. However, the decision must not only be tested by the application of Wednesbury principle of reasonableness (including its other facts pointed out above) but must be free from arbitrariness not affected by bias or actuated by mala fides. (6) Quashing decisions may impose heavy administrative burden on the administration and lead to increased and unbudgeted expenditure. Based on these principles we will examine the facts of this case since they commend to us as the correct principles." 11. It is this judgment of the Supreme Court, which has been consistently followed in the later decisions rendered by the Supreme Court on the subject matter. The tagline of all the decisions of the Supreme Court is that though the decision of the executive in the contractual matters may not be amenable to judicial review, yet, the Court can examine the decision making process and interfere if it is found vitiated by mala fide, unreasonableness and arbitrariness. Needless to emphasize that the impugned decision must not only be tested by application Wednesbury principle of reasonableness, but, must also be free from arbitrariness not effected by bias or actuated by mala fides. It may also be pointed out that the scope of interference in the exercise of power of judicial review by this Court would be comparatively more if the judicial review is invoked by the aggrieved contracting party at the initial stage of the contract than when it is invoked after the contract has been finalized and put to execution. 12. It may also be pointed out that the scope of interference in the exercise of power of judicial review by this Court would be comparatively more if the judicial review is invoked by the aggrieved contracting party at the initial stage of the contract than when it is invoked after the contract has been finalized and put to execution. 12. Having said that, and without disputing the principles of law propounded by learned Senior counsel appearing for respondent No. 6 with regard to the exercise of power of judicial review in the contractual matters, particularly, when these are public contracts by the State, I proceed to examine the issue raised by the petitioner in this petition. Admittedly, the writ petitioner is bound by the terms and conditions of the NIT dated 26.02.2019. Amongst other terms and conditions, the condition No. 1 which for facility of reference has been reproduced hereinabove, clearly provides that the bid offer, which is found to be highest and is accepted by the respondents, is required to be paid in two equal instalments, one within 05 days after the bidder is declared successful and second within four months from the date of entering into the contract in the competent court. The successful bidder, however, is required to submit post-dated cheques of the second instalment along with Bank Guarantee of the second instalment simultaneously with the deposit of first instalment. And if successful bidder fails to fulfill the terms and conditions of the contract, the Committee has been given the right to forfeit the CDR and the amount deposited by the contractor. This is so explicitly provided in condition No. 16. Interestingly, the condition No. 16 does not provide for cancellation of the bid, but, that could be taken to be the necessary consequence of the forfeiture of the CDR. The condition No. 19, which is also reproduced hereinabove is relevant only if the successful bidder fails to pay the amount of second instalment within the stipulated time or the cheques given by him are not honoured/encashed. The aforesaid condition, therefore, may not be relevant for the controversy being determined in this writ petition. As is evident from the perusal of the condition No. 1, the successful bidder is required to be given 05 days after he is declared successful to comply with condition No. 1 of the NIT. The aforesaid condition, therefore, may not be relevant for the controversy being determined in this writ petition. As is evident from the perusal of the condition No. 1, the successful bidder is required to be given 05 days after he is declared successful to comply with condition No. 1 of the NIT. Indisputably, the petitioner was declared successful bidder on 22.03.2019 and was intimated to do the needful in the following manner:- "Further, you are also requested to deposit 50% of the bid amount in shape of demand draft amounting to Rs. 1,09,50,550/- (One Crore Nine Lakh fifty thousand five hundred fifty only) on account of 2nd (final) instalment + GST amount on the total bid amount along with Bank Guarantee before entering into the contract as per the terms and conditions laid in the e-NIT. Thereafter, you will enter into an Agreement with the department/APMC immediately and the formal agreement letter will be issued in your favour." (Extract from the communication of respondent No. 4 dated 22.03.2019) 13. From the plain reading of the extracted portion of the communication, it is clear that notwithstanding the condition No. 1 in the NIT, the petitioner was called upon to deposit 50% of the bid amount in the shape of the demand draft as first instalment within 05 days. Indisputably, the petitioner complied with the aforesaid condition and submitted the demand draft of Rs. 1,09,50,550/- on 26.03.2019. It may further been seen from the above extract, the petitioner was also asked to deposit post-dated cheques worth Rs. 1,09,50,550/- only on account of the second instalment plus GST etc. along with Bank Guarantee before entering into contract as per the terms and conditions laid in the e-NIT. Although the petitioner was, in terms of the aforesaid stipulation in the communication dated 22.03.2019, the petitioner was free to deposit the post-dated cheques and the bank guarantee at any time before entering into the contract, but, the same was required to be done as per the terms and conditions laid in the e-NIT. And as per the condition No. 1 of the NIT, the post-dated cheques and the Bank Guarantee with respect to the second instalment was also required to be deposited with the first instalment, i.e., within 05 days after the bidder is declared successful. 14. And as per the condition No. 1 of the NIT, the post-dated cheques and the Bank Guarantee with respect to the second instalment was also required to be deposited with the first instalment, i.e., within 05 days after the bidder is declared successful. 14. Now the important question that calls for determination in this case is with respect to the period of 05 days stipulated in the condition No. 1 of the e-NIT. The petitioner claims that the 05 days means 5 working days, particularly, when all that was required to be done to comply with the condition No. 1 was dependent upon the functioning of the banks. It is submitted that though the financial bid was opened on 13.02.2019, yet the petitioner was communicated acceptance of his bid only on 22.03.2019. It is alleged that the respondents were aware that 23rd being 4th Saturday and 24th being Sunday were two consecutive banking holidays. This, alleges the petitioner, was done only to make it difficult for the petitioner to fulfill the requirement so that way is paved for allotting the contract to respondent N0.6, the next highest bidder. 15. Per contra, it is contended on behalf of the respondents that as per the stipulation contained in the condition No. 1 of the e-NIT, the petitioner was supposed to fulfill the requisite condition within 05 days and 05 days would mean 05 days and not working days as contended by the petitioner. It is urged that accepting the contention of the petitioner would amount to re-writing the terms and conditions of the contract which this Court may not do in view of the settled legal position on the point. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 6, however, urged that had it been the case of the period of 05 days expiring on a holiday, on the principle of limitation law, the petitioner could have been permitted to deposit the cheques and guarantee on the next working day, but, the position would be different if during the period of 05 days granted to the petitioner to fulfill the requisite formalities, initial two days happen to be banking holidays. The respondents claim that the petitioner had still three working days to do the needful, but, he failed to do so and therefore, can have no grievance on any score. The respondents claim that the petitioner had still three working days to do the needful, but, he failed to do so and therefore, can have no grievance on any score. He having failed to meet the terms and conditions of the e-NIT, has fortified his right to be awarded the contract, and therefore, the decision of the respondents is perfectly legal and falls within the ambit of their powers reserved in the respondents under the terms and conditions of the contract. 16. It may be stated with advantage that the principles of interpretation of the statutory provisions may not be relevant to interpret and understand the terms and conditions of the contract between two parties. While interpreting the terms and conditions of the contract, it is the factual matrix of the contract and the intent of the parties gatherable from reading the contract document in its entirety that would guide interpretation of a term or stipulation in the contract. When we read the NIT as a whole and in its factual matrix, it is abundantly clear that the successful bidder has been obligated to deposit the bid amount in two instalments. The first instalment is payable immediately for which bidder is entitled to have 05 days from the date his bid is declared successful; whereas the second instalment is required to be paid within four months from the date of execution of the contract to be registered before the competent Court. However, with a view to secure the amount of the second instalment and to ensure that the successful bidder pays the second instalment within stipulated period of four months, a mechanism has been provided which casts an obligation on the successful bidder to deposit postdated cheques and the Bank Guarantee pertaining to the second instalment simultaneously with the first instalment. The terms and conditions of the e-NIT, however, do not provide for the consequences of the failure of the successful bidder to deposit the post-dated cheques and the Bank Guarantee with regard to the second instalment within the stipulated period of 05 days. The condition No. 16 generally provides if the successful bidder fails to fulfill the terms and conditions, the Committee has a right to forfeit the CDR and amount deposited by the contractor. The condition No. 16 generally provides if the successful bidder fails to fulfill the terms and conditions, the Committee has a right to forfeit the CDR and amount deposited by the contractor. It is only if the cheques given by the contractor are not honoured or encashed for any reason whatsoever, the contract would be deemed to have terminated without any notice to the contractor. It would also result in forfeiture of any amount paid by the contractor in the form of the CDR or any advance. If we view the condition No. 1 of the terms and conditions in the factual matrix and by reading the documents e-NIT as a whole, it clearly transpires that the stipulation with regard to the deposit of the post-dated cheques along with Bank Guarantee along with first instalment, is not a fundamental condition of the contract, the violation whereof may entail its cancellation. The petitioner had deposited the amount of first instalment within 05 days from the issuance of communication dated 22.03.2019 and, therefore, complied substantially the fundamental condition of the contract. I am not saying so that the condition with regard to the deposit of post-dated cheques and the Bank Guarantee of the second instalment is not required to be complied with, but, I am of the view that the compliance of the aforesaid terms and conditions of the e-NIT even if complied after the stipulated period of 05 days, but, before four months from the date of entering into the contract, would meet the requirement of the e-NIT. The requirement of deposit of post-dated cheques and the Bank Guarantee of the second instalment along with the first instalment cannot be said to be mandatory requirement which goes to the root of the contract. In the instant case, the petitioner deposited the post-dated cheques of the second instalment along with the Bank Guarantee on 28.03.2019, which complies with the requirement stipulated in condition No. 1 of the terms and conditions. That apart, we need to give meaningful interpretation to the expression "within five days after the bid is declared successful". It is not disputed before me that the submission of Bank Guarantee to the tune of Rs. 1,09,50,550/- is a matter, which is not exclusively within the control of the petitioner and the same is primarily dependent upon the working of the banks. It is not disputed before me that the submission of Bank Guarantee to the tune of Rs. 1,09,50,550/- is a matter, which is not exclusively within the control of the petitioner and the same is primarily dependent upon the working of the banks. The communication was issued on 22.03.2019 knowing fully-well that 23rdand 24th of March, 2019 were banking holidays. In this way, the petitioner was given only three days to do the needful to comply with the condition No. 1 of the terms and conditions of the e-NIT, i.e., 25th, 26th, 27th of March, 2019 and his bid was rejected on 27.03.2019 itself at 5 PM. I am, therefore, of the view that in the instant case, the respondents did not give 05 days to the petitioner to do the needful as envisaged in condition No. 1 of the terms and conditions of the e-NIT. The cancellation of the bid of the petitioner and forfeiture of the security on 27.03.2019 when the petitioner still had two more days to do the needful is, therefore, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. At the costs of repetition, it may be emphasized that the period of 05 days given to the petitioner vide communication dated 22.03.2019 would be reckoned from 25.03.2019 and if that being the position, the petitioner has completed requisite formalities and complied with the condition No. 1 of the terms and conditions of the contract within the stipulated period of 05 days. 17. It is also seen that the manner in which the official respondents have conducted themselves leaves no manner of doubt that they have not acted in the matter with fairness and reasonableness. The financial bid was opened on 13.03.2019, but, intimation to the petitioner that he has been declared successful bidder by the Committee was initiated to him only on 22.03.2019. There is no cogent explanation tendered by the official respondents for this delay of about 09 days in intimating the petitioner about the outcome of the financial bid. The financial bid was opened on 13.03.2019, but, intimation to the petitioner that he has been declared successful bidder by the Committee was initiated to him only on 22.03.2019. There is no cogent explanation tendered by the official respondents for this delay of about 09 days in intimating the petitioner about the outcome of the financial bid. In these circumstances, I tend to believe the assertion of the petitioner that the intimation was given to the petitioner about his being successful bidder and he was called upon to complete the requisite formalities within 05 days, deliberately on 22.03.2019 being aware that 23rd and 24th March, 2019 are banking holidays and it would be very difficult if not impossible for the petitioner to arrange the Bank Guarantee of the amount of more than one crore. They were also aware that the financial year was nearing its closure and there would be hectic activities in the banks in connection with the closure of financial year, which could further make the things difficult for the petitioner. From the manner in which the respondents have acted in the matter leaves no manner of doubt that whole effort was made only to pave the way for allotment of the contract in favour of respondent No. 6. Apparently and demonstratively, the respondents have acted in a mala fide manner with a view to confer wrongful benefit on the respondent No. 6, who being the next bidder was not entitled to award of contract. It is also noteworthy that on 27.03.2019 bid of the petitioner was rejected and the contract was allotted to the respondents No. 6 accepting his lower bid, however, later on when the matter was brought to the Court by the petitioner, the respondent No. 6 was asked to raise his bid to the level of the bid submitted by the petitioner. This was done post allotment of contract to the respondent No. 6 and it, in itself, speaks volume about the manner in which the official respondents have acted in the matter of allotment of the contract in favour of respondent No. 6. 18. For the aforesaid reasons and discussion made above, I find merit in this petition and the same is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned communication issued vide No. APMCN/Gate-Entry/2018-19/1673-75 dated 28.03.2019 is quashed. 18. For the aforesaid reasons and discussion made above, I find merit in this petition and the same is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned communication issued vide No. APMCN/Gate-Entry/2018-19/1673-75 dated 28.03.2019 is quashed. Order No. APMCN/Gate-Entry/2018-19/1690-92 dated 30.03.2019 issued by respondent No. 5 allotting the contract in question in favour of respondent No. 6 is also quashed. The amount of security and instalment deposited by the respondent No. 6 shall be refunded to him. The respondents are further directed to allot the contract for Gate Entry Fee Collection at Gate Plaza, Fruit and Vegetable Market, Narwal, Jammu for the year 2019-2020 to the petitioner and allow him to execute the same after entering into formal agreement before the competent court of law. Period spent in litigation, i.e. from 01.04.2019 to the date of allotment of the contract to the petitioner shall eschew from the period of contract. The petitioner shall be compensated either by suitably extending the period or refunding the bid amount proportionately. 19. Disposed of along with connected CM(s).