Facts of the Case

Farooq Hussain, a contractor from Poonch district, challenged the technical evaluation results (dated 17 and 25 August 2023) and the subsequent financial-bid result and work allotment for a PWD road-construction tender (e-NIT No. 14 of 2023-24) for building a road from Pandamar Gohlad to Soyian Chowki via PS Breeni, Tehsil Mendhar, District Poonch (estimated cost Rs. 585.80 lakh, under NABARD funding).

His technical bid had been declared 'non-responsive' while the bid of respondent no. 5, Mohd. Mashooq, was declared 'responsive'; the petitioner alleged non-compliance by the successful bidder with various clauses of the tender notice, including non-uploading of mandatory documents.

The petitioner sought quashing of the technical and financial bid results, a mandamus directing the authorities to declare his own bid responsive and consider his financial bid on merits, and to restrain allotment of the work to respondent no. 5.

The official respondents defended the process, and it was undisputed that by the time the matter was argued, the tender process had culminated in an allotment order (31 August 2023) and the successful bidder had already commenced execution of the work.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the disqualification of the petitioner's technical bid, and the subsequent award to respondent no. 5, warranted judicial interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.
  2. The scope of a High Court's power to review administrative/commercial decisions in tender matters, especially after the contract has been awarded and work has commenced.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The tender process was manipulated to favour respondent no. 5, whose technical bid should have been rejected for non-compliance with mandatory clauses of the tender notice/Standard Bidding Document.
  • The petitioner's own bid was wrongly declared non-responsive, and this should be corrected so his financial bid could be considered.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The petitioner's technical bid was properly rejected for failing to comply with the tender notice/Standard Bidding Document conditions.
  • The tender process, having culminated in an allotment order with work already underway, should not be disturbed absent a clear and grave illegality.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court reiterated settled Supreme Court principles (Tata Motors Ltd., Silppi Construction Contractors, Jagdish Mandal, Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport) that judicial review of tender and contract-award decisions must be exercised with great restraint, limited to cases of clear arbitrariness, mala fides or irrationality, and that courts should be reluctant to unsettle a tender process once the contract is underway.
  • It found that the petitioner's technical bid had been rejected because it did not comply with the tender notice/Standard Bidding Document, and no mala fide or favouritism was established.
  • Given that the tender process had already culminated in an allotment order and execution was underway, the Court found no merit warranting interference and dismissed the writ petition in limine, along with connected applications.

Important Clarification

This is a public-procurement decision applying well-established restraint on judicial review of tender/contract-award decisions — it does not decide any point of GST law; GST registration was simply among the standard bid-submission documents referenced in the tender conditions.

Sections Involved

  • Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226, under which the writ petition was filed.
  • Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019 — the framework governing the Union Territory's administration, relevant to the array of respondents.

Decision – In Favour of

Decided against the petitioner, Farooq Hussain — the writ petition was dismissed in limine, leaving the tender award to respondent no. 5 undisturbed.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu
  • Case No.: WP(C) No. 2304 of 2023 with CM No. 5361 of 2023 and Caveat No. 1601 of 2023
  • Coram: Justice M A Chowdhary
  • Date of Order: 22 September 2023

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.