Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 293 (JK)

New JK Roadways v. Union Territory of J. & K.

2022-06-02

RAJNESH OSWAL

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the present petition was taken up for final consideration. 2. The petitioner is seeking quashing of tender bearing No. GEM/2022-B/1990216 dated 25.02.2022 issued by respondent No. 3 by virtue of which a fresh tender has been issued for hiring of multi utility commercial vehicles, as the same is illegal, arbitrary, unjustified and also against the interim order dated 14.06.2021 passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 1113/2021 and further prayer has been made for prohibiting the respondents to issue fresh tender till adjudication of WP(C) No. 1113/2021. 3. It is stated that the above mentioned tender that has been floated by the respondent No. 3 for hiring of the multi utility commercial vehicles mainly for transportation of Nafri/Para-Military Force personnel from one place to another including Light Passenger Motor Vehicles and also for other logistic support is patently arbitrary and unjustified and also in violation of the direction dated 14.06.2021 issued by this Court in WP(C) No. 1113/2021, titled, Rajinder Kumar Sharma v/s U. T. Of J&K and others. It is stated that earlier e-NIT dated 18.03.2021 was floated by the respondents and the petitioner participated in the said tender, however, one unsuccessful bidder aggrieved of the rejection of his bid, challenged his rejection by way of a writ petition mentioned above and this Court directed the parties to maintain status quo. The petitioner amongst other contractors being aggrieved of the above said interim order, filed detailed objections along with an application seeking vacation/modification of the aforesaid interim direction. It is also stated that the petitioner has been declared as L1 and as per terms and conditions of the aforesaid tender, the petitioner had furnished CDRs amounting to Rs. 40,00,000/- with the respondents and which is still lying with the respondents. After the tender in question dated 25.02.2022 was floated, the petitioner and other transporters filed a detailed representation before the respondent No. 3 and the respondent No. 3 assured them that the matter would be taken up with the higher authorities. But instead of redressing the grievances of the petitioners and other transporters, the respondents extended the last date of submission of the bids initially from 07.03.2022 to 08.03.2022 and thereafter again extended to 19.03.2022. But instead of redressing the grievances of the petitioners and other transporters, the respondents extended the last date of submission of the bids initially from 07.03.2022 to 08.03.2022 and thereafter again extended to 19.03.2022. It is further stated that the petitioner and other transporters once again being aggrieved, approached the respondent No. 3 by filing a detailed representation that they may be allowed to work as per previous tender but till date nothing substantial has been done. 4. The only ground on the basis of which the petitioner has filed the present petition is that a fresh tender was floated despite issuance of status quo order in the petition mentioned above. 5. Response stands filed by the respondents in which it has been stated that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the bid process pursuant to the tender mentioned above as the petitioner has not participated in the same. The technical bids were opened on 31.03.2022 and evaluated by the Zonal Accounts Officer, Zonal Police Headquarter Jammu under the supervision of ADGP Jammu Zone, Jammu. Thereafter, financial bid was opened on 28.04.2022 and the final proceedings are pending approval before SLEC, Police Headquarter, J&K for award of contract to successful bidder. It is further stated that the tender in question has been issued to meet the requirement of vehicles for the years 2022-2023 and it is wrong that the respondents have violated the order of status quo passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 1113/2021 as the said tender pertained to the period from 01.04.2021 to 31.03.2022 as such, both the tenders are not co-related. It is submitted that the writ petition bearing No. WP(C) No. 1113/2021 stands withdrawn vide order dated 13.04.2022. The respondents have placed on record the order of withdrawal of the said writ petition. 6. Mr. Achal Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the respondents have violated the order of status quo passed in the writ petition bearing No. WP(C) No. 1113/2021 and further that the petitioner has been put to great loss. 7. Per contra, Mr. Raman Sharma, learned AAG argued that only ground on the basis of which the present petition has been filed was the status quo order passed in WP(C) No. 1113/2021 and now as the same stands withdrawn, as such, the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. Heard and perused the record. 9. 7. Per contra, Mr. Raman Sharma, learned AAG argued that only ground on the basis of which the present petition has been filed was the status quo order passed in WP(C) No. 1113/2021 and now as the same stands withdrawn, as such, the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. Heard and perused the record. 9. From the record, it is evident that the writ petition bearing No. WP(C) No. 1113/2021 wherein status quo order was passed, has been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 13.04.2022. Further from the record, it is evident that the tender in question has been issued for the period w.e.f. 01.04.2022 to 31.03.2023 whereas the tender dated 18.03.2021 was meant for a period of financial year, 2021-2022. 10. In view of all what has been discussed above, both the tenders are for different period and further that the writ petition bearing No. WP(C) No. 1113/2021 stands withdrawn, so there is no merit in the present writ petition, as such, the same is dismissed. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to avail the appropriate remedy as available under law.