MUKESH KUMAR v. UT OF J AND K TH COMMISSIONER SECRETARY, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, JAMMU AND OTHERS
WP(C)/3536/2025 · 2025-12-15
Rahul Bharti
Writ Petition (Civil)body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 10263 (JK) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 10263 (JK) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
WP(C) No. 3536/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
WP(C) No. 3536/2025 CM No. 8060/2025
Date of pronouncement : 15.12.2025
Uploaded on : 16.12.2025
Mukesh Kumar
….Petitioner
Through:- Mr. Ankesh Chandel, Advocate.
V/s
UT of J&K & Ors.
…..Respondents
Through:-
\
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
01. The petitioner is a prospective bidder vis-à-vis two auction ID Nos. 27172 and 27173 both dated 07.11.2025 floated by the Directorate of State Motor Garages Department, Govt. of UT of J&K for e-Auction of condemned vehicles/un- serviceable stores.
02. Both auction bid notices carry an essential requirement of deposit of a prescribed amount of money as CDR/FDR pledged to the Deputy Director, State Motor Garages Department, Jammu/Kashmir as a security deposit with the Directorate of State Motor Garages Department, J&K, Srinagar/Jammu for participating in the auction proceedings. Serial No. 166 Supplementary List-I
WP(C) No. 3536/2025
03. The petitioner is aggrieved that the prescribed amount of Rs. 2.50 lac and Rs. 5.00 lac as security deposits are unfair and unreasonable which debars a small scale placed prospective bidder handicapped in responding and participating in the auction.
04. The petitioner cannot be heard to say that the terms and conditions of the auction process be tailored made according to the financial condition of an interested and indenting bidder as that scenario would be opening of a pandora box for an authority intending to conduct the auction of public assets.
05. Therefore, this Court sees no merit in the present writ petition filed by the petitioner. Hence, the same is dismissed alongwith connected application.
06. Let the petitioner proceed ahead with his participation in the process with the deposit of the requisite CDR/FDR amount, which would always be lying as trust money with the authority concerned. In the event of petitioner coming successful with respect to any one of the lot/s put to auction which would, accordingly, be adjustable, as such, the petitioner would not be suffering any loss of money in that regard.
(RAHUL BHARTI) JUDGE JAMMU
15.12.2025
Bunty
Whether the judgment is speaking: Yes/No Whether the judgment is reportable: Yes/No
Bunty Kumar 2025.12.16 14:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Jammu