HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU WP(C ) No. 3085/2024 M/S Gulam Qadir Dar and sons ….applicant Through :- Mr. M.K.Raina Advocate. V/s UT of Jammu and Kashmir and ors Through :- Mr. Sunil Malhotra G.A. Mr. Rahul Raina Advocate. CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, JUDGE JUDGMENT(ORAL) CM No. 780/2025 This is an application filed on behalf of the applicants seeking their impleadment as party respondents in the instant writ petition, the details of whom are set out in the application. For the reasons stated therein, the application is allowed. The applicants, as detailed in the application, are impleaded as party respondents Nos. 5 to 10 in the writ petition. The Registry is directed to update the cause title accordingly. The application is, accordingly, disposed of. WP(C ) No. 3085/2024 1 By this petition, the petitioner seeks the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, thereby quashing the policy for empanelment of private enterprises for the establishment of High-Density Orchards in the Jammu 2 Division of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, as notified vide Government Order dated 27.12.2022. The petitioner also prays for the issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to adhere to the said policy and not to deviate from the terms contained therein. Factual Matrix: 2 The respondents initially formulated a policy for the empanelment of private enterprises for the establishment of High-Density Orchards in Jammu and Kashmir, as notified vide Government Order dated 27.12.2022. The objective of the said policy was to promote the fruit-growing sector and to boost the horticulture industry in the Union Territory. In pursuance of the said notification, the respondents invited Expressions of Interest (EOI) from private enterprises/entrepreneurs/nursery entrepreneurs/startups/FPOs/cooperative groups/registered companies for empanelment under the said scheme. This was done in accordance with the scheme notified vide Government Order No. 425-K (APD) of 2022 dated 30.11.2023. The petitioner, having met all the eligibility criteria and terms and conditions as stipulated under the said policy and EOI, submitted his application. Upon scrutiny, the petitioner was found eligible and was accordingly empanelled vide order dated 27.01.2024, issued by the Directorate of Horticulture, Kashmir. 3 It is submitted that in order to qualify for empanelment, applicants were required to meet the terms and conditions specified in the EOI/policy. It is stated that the petitioner has already invested a substantial amount of capital in the project and is, therefore, entitled to the benefits guaranteed under the said scheme.As per the terms of the policy, the 3 empanelment was to remain valid for five years from the date of empanelment. The respondents, therefore, were precluded from issuing a fresh notification for empanelment of new agencies during this period. It is submitted that contrary to the above, the respondents have issued a fresh notification dated 11.12.2024 inviting applications for a new empanelment, which is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition. The petitioner submits that the fresh advertisement directly affects his legal rights and legitimate expectations, and he is, therefore, aggrieved by the same. 4 On 31.12.2024, this Court, while issuing notice to the respondents, granted two days’ time to them to obtain instructions in the matter. On 02.01.2025, upon the matter being taken up again, this Court while granting time to the respondents to file objections, had directed that any process initiated pursuant to the impugned policy shall not be finalized and would await further orders from this Court. 5 In their objections, the respondents submitted that vide Government Order dated 27.12.2022, a revised Modified High-Density Plantation Scheme was launched. The scheme envisaged the coverage of 5500 hectares of land across the Union Territory over a period of five years, with active participation of private entrepreneurs having domain expertise. Pursuant to the EOI issued by the Director of Horticulture, Kashmir on 30.11.2023, 08 private enterprises were empanelled under the scheme. However, upon reviewing the implementation of the scheme in the Jammu Division, it was observed that several empanelled enterprises failed to execute the required works despite issuance of work orders. Reports from the Chief Horticulture Officers of several districts indicated poor performance, thereby hampering the achievement of targets. In light of the above, the Chief 4 Horticulture Officers requested the issuance of a separate EOI for the Jammu Division to ensure the timely implementation of the scheme. This move was aimed at enabling participation from local horticulture/agriculture entrepreneurs and nursery owners, thus, promoting wider competition, transparency, and efficient execution of the project. Consequently, the Director of Horticulture, Jammu issued a fresh EOI for the empanelment of new private enterprises. It is clarified by the respondents that the existing empanelled entrepreneurs were not barred from executing work under the new EOI. Furthermore, the failure of the already empanelled enterprises to execute the allotted work in Jammu Division necessitated the issuance of the impugned notification. Out of the 08 empanelled enterprises, only 03 commenced work, but none could meet the required targets. Hence, to ensure that the project achieves its objectives, the conditions of the new EOI were relaxed to facilitate broader participation. It is also submitted that the petitioner himself participated in the fresh EOI and is currently in the process of executing the project. Therefore, no prejudice has been caused to him. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 7 The petitioner states that the policy notified on 27.12.2022 was a comprehensive scheme aimed at promoting horticulture by empanelling private entrepreneurs across the Union Territory. Based on this policy and the Expression of Interest (EOI) dated 30.11.2023, the petitioner applied and was empanelled by virtue of an order dated 27.01.2024, after proper scrutiny. The policy stated that the empanelment would remain valid for five years, and no new empanelment or deviation from the original framework was expected during this period. 5 8 A policy issued under the Government’s executive powers can create a legitimate expectation for those who are empanelled according to its terms. However, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corporation, (1993) 3 SCC 499, such expectations must be reasonable and should not override public interest. 9. The petitioner’s another grievance is that despite being empanelled and investing significant amounts in the project, the Government has issued a new EOI to empanel more entrepreneurs in the Jammu Division, which he claims affects his commercial interests.. The Government’s decision to issue a new EOI appears to be based on administrative needs. It has been stated that many of the already empanelled agencies were not performing well, which prompted the new EOI to meet time-bound targets. As per the Supreme Court’s ruling in Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651, Courts should not interfere with administrative decisions unless they are arbitrary. Moreover, the new EOI does not bar the petitioner from continuing work or participating further. In fact, he is already executing work under the original empanelment, as confirmed by the respondents. Therefore, his existing rights have not been taken away. 10 The petitioner further contends that once empanelled under the original policy, the Government is estopped from altering the policy framework midway. However, the doctrine of promissory estoppel, as laid down in Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P., (1979) 2 SCC 409, is not absolute and cannot be invoked where a change in policy is necessitated by overriding public interest or administrative exigency. Likewise, the principle of legitimate expectation does not confer an enforceable right to prevent the Government from revising or modifying policy measures 6 undertaken for effective implementation of its schemes, as held in National Buildings Construction Corporation v. S. Raghunathan, (1998) 7 SCC 66. 11 The respondents have reasonably justified the new EOI on the basis of under performance by earlier empanelled agencies, the need to support local entrepreneurs, and the urgency of achieving scheme goals. There is no material on record to suggest that the impugned action is tainted by mala fides or motivated by extraneous considerations. 12. The petitioner’s claim of financial loss due to increased competition from the new EOI cannot be accepted. Empanelment under a Government scheme does not create an exclusive right unless clearly stated. Loss of profit due to competition is a natural result of public schemes and not a ground for judicial interference unless there is clear discrimination or illegality, which has not been proven in this case, moreover, the petitioner has neither been removed from the empanelment nor prevented from doing the work already assigned to him. It has been pointed out that the petitioner had also participated in the process initiated under the new Expression of Interest (EOI). Having voluntarily participated without demur, the petitioner is now estopped from challenging the same. It is a settled principle of law that a party who takes part in a process with full knowledge of its terms cannot subsequently approbate and reprobate, or turn around to question its validity merely because the outcome was unfavourable to him. 13 In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court holds that the original policy dated 27.12.2022, is still valid, and the petitioner remains empanelled under it. The new EOI dated 11.12.2024, does not cancel or replace his empanelment. The Government’s decision seems to be based on 7 practical requirements to achieve targets and encourage wider participation. It does not appear to be arbitrary or illegal. Therefore, there is no justification to set aside the new EOI. 14 Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, and order dated 02.01.2025, shall stand vacated. (MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI) JUDGE Jammu 04.06.2025 Sanjeev Whether approved for judgment: Yes/No