HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU WP(C) No. 2099/2025 CM No. 4780/2025 Vivek Tandon …..Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Arun Gandotra, Advocate Vs UT of J&K and ors. .…. Respondents Through: CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER 06.08.2025 1. The petitioner, through the medium of this writ petition has challenged allotment of tender issued by respondent No. 3 in favour of respondent No. 4. A further direction commanding respondent Nos. 1 & 2 to hold an inquiry into the illegalities and irregularities committed by respondent No. 8 in allotting the said tender in favour of respondent No. 4 has also been sought. 2. As per the case of the petitioner, respondent No. 3 had floated E-tender bearing Tender Reference No. 81 of 2024-2025 dated 18.11.2024 for Upgradation/Repair and Renovation of Meeting Hall, Guest Rooms including construction of new Toilets and other Allied works at Bungalow No. 1 Ghulami Bagh, Jammu. The petitioner along with other bidders is stated to have participated in the tender in which respondent No. 4 also participated. The technical bid was opened on 18.11.2024 and the financial bid was opened on 23.11.2024. The contract was ultimately awarded in favour of respondent No. 4. Sr. No. 158 2 WP(C) No. 2099/2025 3. The petitioner has challenged the allotment of tender in favour of respondent No. 4 on the ground that while submitting his bid, the said respondent has wrongly filled the columns relating to “Offline Tender Fee Payment Details” and “Offline EMD Fee Payment Details”. It has been submitted that under the column “Instrument Number”, instead of filling up the Instrument number, respondent No. 4 has filled up the Figure “600” which was the amount of Tender Fee. Similarly, under the Column “Instrument Number” in Column “Offline EMD Fee Payment Details”, figure “000” has been filled up and the details of the Instrument Number have not been filled. According to the petitioner, as per the response to the RTI query, filling up of both these columns is a mandatory requirement and as such, in the absence of correct details having been furnished by respondent No. 4, the contract could not have been allotted in his favour. 4. Heard and considered. 5. It is not in dispute that respondent No. 4 has paid the tender fee of Rs. 600/- to the official respondents and it is also not in dispute that respondent No. 4 has paid an amount of Rs. 74,000/- to the official respondents on account of Offline EMD Fee. The only contention of the petitioner is that wrong details have been filled up in the bid submission form. While, it is mandatory to fill up the columns relating to “Offline Tender Fee Payment Details” and “Offline EMD Fee Payment Details”, mere typographical or clerical errors while filling up the bid submission form cannot form a ground to reject the bid. In any case, an employer has discretion to relax such typographical and clerical errors and it is always open to 3 WP(C) No. 2099/2025 the employer to allow the bidder to correct such typographical/clerical errors. 6. Thus, it is not a case where respondent No. 4 had failed to either deposit the tender fee or to deposit EMD fee but it is a case where there has been some clerical error on his part in filing up the requisite details. This, in the considered opinion of this Court, cannot form a ground for quashing the allotment of contract in his favour. 7. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find merit in this petition. The same is dismissed, accordingly. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE JAMMU 06.08.2025 Tarun/PS Whether the order is speaking? Yes/No Whether the order is reportable? Yes/No. Mahavir Singh 2025.08.07 16:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document