S. No. 231 Supp. Cause List IN THE HIGH C0URT 0F JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP (C) No. 974/2025 M/S WANI CONSTRUCTION TH. PROPRIETOR …Appellant/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Tawheed Ahmad, Adv. Vs. UT OF J&K AND ORS. ...Respondent(s) Through: Ms. Rahila, Adv. vice Mr. A. R. Malik, Sr. AAG CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE WASIM SADIQ NARGAL, JUDGE ORDER 02.05.2025 The only ground which has been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the instant petition is that the order passed by this court in a writ petition, preferred by the petitioner in the earlier round of litigation, which was registered as WP (C) No. 807/2025,has not been complied with, whereby, the Chief Engineer R&BNorth Circle, Baramulla, was directed to pass a speaking order with respect to the status and fate of the petitioner’s bid in response to e-tender Notice No. NIT No. 93/R&B of 2024-25 dated 10.03.2025 within a period of three days from the date of passing of the aforesaid order dated 21.04.2025, whereby it was made clear that the petitioner will be at liberty to approach the court afresh, if cause of action, on the outcome of the issuance of the order by the Chief Engineer R&B North Circle, Baramulla, survives. Today when the instant petition was taken up, it has been brought to the notice of the court by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the official respondents that the speaking order in terms of the aforesaid order,has already been passed on 24.04.2025 and the petitioner instead of challenging the aforesaid order, has called in question the quashment of the allotment order issued in favour of respondent No. 4. At this stage learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has not provided copy of the speaking order and this is the precise reason that he could not challenge the aforesaid order as has been directed by this court in the earlier round of litigation in the case mentioned supra. Learned counsel for the respondents is directed to provide the copy of the speaking order to the learned counsel for the petitioner in open court, the copy of which has been furnished however, the learned counsel wants to peruse the same and to work out his remedy as has already been directed by this court, if so advised. Confronted with the passing of the order by the Chief Engineer (R&B) North Circle, Baramulla in terms of the aforesaid order passed by this court in WP (C) No. 807/2025 in the earlier round of litigation, the learned counsel seeks withdrawal of the instant writ petition with a liberty to challenge the aforesaid order. The instant writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. (WASIM SADIQ NARGAL) JUDGE SRINAGAR 02.05.2025 Sakeena