HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Case:- WP(C) No.2336/2025 M/S Anand Chemiceuticals …..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Dhruv Pant, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rahul Pant, Advocate. Vs UT of J&K & Ors. .….Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Raman Sharma, AAG Mr. Pranav Kohli, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vastav Sharma, Advocate Ms. Jagmeet Kour, Advocate. Mr. Farhan Mirza, Advocate Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER (26.08.2025) Caveat No.1934/2025 Discharged. WP(C) No.2336/2025 1. The petitioner, through the medium of present writ petition, has sought a direction upon the respondents to conclude the bidding process initiated pursuant to e-NIT No.NIT/JKMSCL/M&E/2023/568 dated 14.01.2023 for procurement of automatic Chemiluminescence (for short ‘CLIA’) Analyser with a further direction to the respondents to consider the bid submitted by the petitioner for being adjudged as L1 for issuance of letter of intent in its favour. Serial No. 138 2 WP(C) No.2336/2025 2. Issue notice to the respondents. 3. Mr. Raman Sharma, AAG accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 4. Mr. Farhan Mirza, Advocate has filed a caveat and has entered appearance on behalf of respondent-M/S S. R. Technomed. He has submitted that the caveator has already moved an application before this Court seeking his impleadment as a respondent, which has been registered as CM No.5440/2025, however, the said application is not listed. The learned counsel has handed over hard copy of the said application, which is taken on record. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the case. 6. It is revealed from the record of the case that the petitioner had responded to the aforesaid e-NIT and after having been found as technically qualified along with applicant-M/S S. R. Technomed, the financial bids were opened by the respondent. It also appears that upon opening of the financial bids, the petitioner has emerged as L1. However, after opening of the financial bids, certain queries came to be raised by respondent-employer which were responded to by the petitioner. These queries were raised by respondent-employer on the basis of the complaint made by the applicant, who has emerged as L2. 3 WP(C) No.2336/2025 7. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite having satisfactorily explained the queries raised by the employer on a number of occasions, a final decision is not being taken by the respondents and despite petitioner having emerged as L1-bidder, the letter of intent is not being issued in its favour. 8. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the applicant/caveator-M/S S. R. Technomed has submitted that besides the queries which have already raised by the employer and which according to him have not been satisfactorily explained by the petitioner, there are other conditions of the bid document which have not been fulfilled by the petitioner. This includes filing of false affidavit and concealment of information with regard to blacklisting of the petitioner company. 9. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that whatever queries have been raised by the respondent-employer, those have been properly answered by the petitioner and it is not open either to the applicant/caveator or to the respondents to raise any fresh queries/objections at this stage. 10. Without going into the merits of the rival contentions raised by the writ petitioner and by the applicant/caveator, one thing is certain that final decision in the matter is yet to be taken by the employer. It is only after the final decision is taken by the employer 4 WP(C) No.2336/2025 that this Court can venture into the legality of the decision of the employer that may be taken by it on the merits of the contentions raised by the parties. At this stage, it would be premature to go into all these aspects of the matter. Thus, it would be appropriate to allow the respondent-employer to take a decision in the matter at this stage. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to take a final decision in the matter regarding allotment of the contract and while doing so, it shall be open to the respondents to consider the contentions that may be raised by the parties, if the same is legally permissible. The decision in accordance with the law shall be taken by the respondents most expeditiously preferably within four weeks from today. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE JAMMU 26.08.2025 Sneha Whether the order is speaking? Yes /No Whether the order is reportable? Yes/No