HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU WP(C) No. 2955/2025 MA Constructions Th. Abdul Aziz …..Petitioner Through: Mr. Irfaan Khan, Advocate Vs UT of J&K & Ors. .….Respondents Through: Mr. Ravinder Gupta, AAG CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER (18.10.2025) 1. The petitioner has challenged summary of Technical Evaluation Report dated 14.10.2025 issued by respondent No. 3-Chief Engineer, PMGSY (JKRRDA) whereby bid of the petitioner in reference to e-NIT No. CEJ/PMGSY/794 of 2025-26 dated 08.08.2025 has been declared as „Non-Responsive‟. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 3. As per the impugned Technical Evaluation Report, reasons for the rejection of petitioner‟s bid has been reflected as:- Serial No. 98 2 WP(C) No. 2955/2025 “The Proposed Program of construction/Bar chart is not as per the requirement of SBD clause 4.2(XVI), 4.4 B(a) XVI and 12.2 b XVI, Hence, Non-Responsive” 4. Perusal of SBD clause 4.2(XVI) reveals that there is a requirement for submission of proposed program of construction and quality management plan proposed for all the works as per technical specifications and within the stipulated period of completion. It is further provided that bid of any bidder whose proposed programme of construction exceeds the stipulated period of completion will be outrightly rejected. 5. In the instant case, the petitioner had submitted his bid in respect of the work relating to Construction and Maintenance of Road from L060-(Link Road) Golo top to Mori, Package No. JK17-4204, PMGSY-IV, Batch-I of 2025-26, Block-Bunjwah, District Kishtwar, with stipulated time of completion as 11 months. Admittedly, the petitioner has uploaded the proposed programme of construction and quality management plan for the works with time stipulation of 15 months which is clearly a violation of SBD clause 4.2(XVI). 6. As already stated, the said clause lays down that if a bidder whose proposed programme of construction 3 WP(C) No. 2955/2025 exceeds the stipulated period of completion, the said bid would be outrightly rejected. This clearly indicates that the aforesaid clause is mandatory in nature because it involves penalty of rejection of bid on account of its breach by a bidder. 7. In the aforesaid circumstances, the contention of the petitioner that the violation of the aforesaid SBD condition on the part of the petitioner is minor in nature which could have been ignored, cannot be accepted. 8. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. The same is accordingly, dismissed. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE JAMMU 18.10.2025 SUNIL