Jammu & Kashmir High Court: Imperil Of Public Interest If Respondents Not Allowed To Execute the Contract

Must Read

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi,...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent...

Inordinate and Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation by Government Renders Detention Order Illegal: Madras High Court

A Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in the Madras High Court to declare the detention...

Privy Council Clarifies Approach To Winding up in “Deadlock” Cases in the Case of Chu v. Lau

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified several aspects of the law concerning just and equitable winding-up petitions,...

Madras High Court Directs Hospital To Submit Necessary Medical Reports to Authorization Committee for Approval of Kidney Transplant

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore by...

Punjab Woman Evokes Petition for Protection Fearing Honour Killing

In the case of Divya Mattu and another vs State of Punjab and others, the petitioner, Divya, fearing honour...

Follow us

On 30th June 2020, Hon’ble Justice Sindhu Sharma heard the case of M/s New J.K. Roadways vs Union Territory of J&K and others, via-video conferencing. The Court dismissed the petition as it lacked merit.

Facts of the case

The I-G of Police, Kashmir Zone and Zonal Police HQR’s Kashmir, Srinagar invited online tenders. They invited reputed transporters, registered firms and associations. This was for the supply of various types of commercial vehicles. Four parties submitted their bids for consideration. Out of the two bidders, M/s New JK Roadways and M/s Associated Contractors did not qualify in the technical bid. While, M/s Quareshi Transport Co. and M/s Galaxy Transport Agencies qualified the technical bid.

Both were thus, considered for allotment of the contract. However, M/s Galaxy Transport Agencies was the lowest bidder. Thus, the contract was allotted to M/s Galaxy Transport Agencies. The petitioner seeks to quash the allotment of the contract to respondent No. 5 – M/s Galaxy Transport Agencies.

He further seeks direction for allotment of the said contract to the petitioner.

Contentions of the Petitioner

The respondent No. 5 did not fulfil the terms and conditions of the trader. The firm did not own the requisite service license to execute the contract. Its license to run Motor Transport service was valid only up to 31.03.2020.

Thus, the respondent No. 5 is not qualified for allotment of the contract. Out of the list of 36 vehicles, only 29 vehicles were in the name of M/s Galaxy Agency, 7 vehicles were in the name of some other persons.

Thus, respondent No. 5 did not own a requisite number of vehicles as per the condition of the contract.

Contentions of the Respondents

According to the tender notice, the bidders should have at least 30 vehicles. All registered in their names. This is the most essential condition. The petitioner did not meet the same.

Hence, the respondents rejected the petitioner’s bid. Having failed to meet the condition, the petitioner can’t assail allotment of contract. The respondent No. 5 qualified the technical bid and allotment of contract.

Court’s Analysis

At the time of submission of tender, respondent No. 5 possessed a valid transportation service license. The last date of validity was 31.03.2020. He sought extension of the validity of the license. But due to COVID-19, a general order was issued. This order extended the validity of documents of service till 30.06.2020. Thus, respondent No.5 fulfilled the condition of holding a valid service license.

Therefore, the respondent fulfilled the condition of having registered at least 30 vehicles. The Court referred to the Supreme Court case of ‘Raunaq International Limited v. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. & Ors. (1999) 1 SCC 492’. In this case, it was held that the Writ Court cannot interfere in commercial transactions where the State is a party.

It can interfere only when there is a substantial public interest involved and where the transaction is malafide. It was sought that respondent No. 5 was the lowest bidder. Thus, the public interest would get imperil if the respondents are not allowed to execute the contract.

Court’s Decision

It was held that respondent No. 5 had satisfied essential conditions and is eligible for the contract. The petitioner being ineligible, cannot question allotment of the contract to respondent No. 5. There is no merit in the petition. Hence, the Court dismissed the petition.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi, called for records of the...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent on immigrants to comply with. Background The...

Inordinate and Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation by Government Renders Detention Order Illegal: Madras High Court

A Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in the Madras High Court to declare the detention order of the husband of...

Privy Council Clarifies Approach To Winding up in “Deadlock” Cases in the Case of Chu v. Lau

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified several aspects of the law concerning just and equitable winding-up petitions, as well as shareholder disputes...

Madras High Court Directs Hospital To Submit Necessary Medical Reports to Authorization Committee for Approval of Kidney Transplant

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore by P. Sankar & V. Sobana....

Punjab Woman Evokes Petition for Protection Fearing Honour Killing

In the case of Divya Mattu and another vs State of Punjab and others, the petitioner, Divya, fearing honour killing against her by her...

Punjab Woman Accuses Punjab Police of Keeping Husband in Illegal Custody and Framing Him in a False Case

In the case of Geeta v the State of Punjab, the petitioner evoked a writ petition of habeas corpus as she claimed that her...

Addition of Words as Prefixes or Suffixes Is an Infringement of a Registered Trademark: Delhi High Court

Justice Jayanth Nath allowed the Times Group to use its registered trademark “Newshour”, in the case of Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd v. ARG Outlier...

Just Because the Deceased Did Not Have License, Does Not Imply He Was Negligent: Chhattisgarh High Court

In the case of Hemlal & Others v. Dayaram & Others, a Single Bench of Chhattisgarh High Court consisting of Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal annunciated various...

Hoardings Are Movable Property Under Section 2(3) of DMC Act Subject To the Twin Test: Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court in the case of Delhi International Airport v South Delhi Metropolitan Corporation discussed in detail the provision under Section 2(3) of the DMC...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -