34 Supplementary HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP(C) No. 28/2025 CM NO. 65/2025 Caveat 3140/2024 M/s M M Shawl Engineers and Contractors ….. Petitioner (s) Through: Mr. Firdous Ahmad, Adv. V/s UT of J&K and Ors. ….. Respondent(s) Through: Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Dhar, Judge. ORDER 02.01.2025 1. The petitioner has challenged order dated 24.12.2024 issued by respondent No. 4 whereby representation of the petitioner has been rejected. 2. Heard and considered. 3. It appears that the respondent J&K Housing Police Corporation Kashmir Division issued E-NIT No. 14 of PHC Kashmir Div./2024- 25 dated 16.08.2024 whereby tender was invited from the AAY Class Contractors for “Construction of 02 BHK Towers (G+6) with stilt parking (4 towers) at HMT Srinagar. The estimated cost of the work was Rs. 2264.00 lacs. It appears that the petitioner and respondent P a g e | 2 WP(C) No. 28/2025 CM NO. 65/2025 Caveat 3140/2024 No. 5 had participated in the said tender process and respondent No. 5 was declared as qualified in the technical evaluation. 4. The petitioner, it seems had invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court against the aforesaid decision of the respondents by filing writ petition bearing WP(C) No. 2905/2024. The writ petition was disposed of by this Court in terms of order dated 13.12.2024 and a direction was issued to the respondents that they shall decide the representation submitted by the petitioner within a period of one week and they shall afford opportunity of hearing to respondent No. 5 before deciding the representation of the petitioner. 5. By virtue of the impugned order, the respondents pursuant to the aforesaid direction of this Court have passed consideration order and rejected the representation of the petitioner. 6. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the grounds that respondent No. 5 had submitted experience certificates after the closure of the bids and the same could not have been considered by the respondents. It has been further contended that respondent No. 5 is a civil contractor and as per the conditions of the tender, a contractor had to be registered Civil as well as registered electrical/mechanical contractor. Thus according to the petitioner, respondent No. 5 was not qualified to participate in the bidding P a g e | 3 WP(C) No. 28/2025 CM NO. 65/2025 Caveat 3140/2024 process. On these grounds the petitioners have challenged the impugned consideration order. 7. If we have a look at the impugned consideration order, it has been clearly indicated therein that the respondent Corporation after analyzing the documents submitted by the tenderers sought clarification with regard to the authenticity of these documents from the issuing authorities, whereafter certificates regarding authenticity of these documents were received from the concerned entities. It is in these circumstances that these certificates were issued by the relevant entities. Obviously these clarifications and verifications regarding the experience certificates of respondent No. 5 were received after the bidding process was over. It has been submitted that the respondent Corporation has never corresponded with respondent No. 5 but only the authenticity of the documents submitted by the said respondent was procured from the concerned entities. Thus respondent Corporation has clearly explained the circumstances in which the certificates, copies whereof have been placed on record by the petitioner along with the writ petition, bear date(s) which is after the closure of the bid. 8. The second argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is also without any merit. It is clearly indicated in the tender documents that the contractor has to be a registered civil, electrical/mechanical P a g e | 4 WP(C) No. 28/2025 CM NO. 65/2025 Caveat 3140/2024 contractor meaning thereby that a contractor in order to be eligible to participate in the tendering process has to be either a registered civil or a registered electrical/mechanical contractor. It was not a requirement of eligibility that the contractor had to be registered both as civil as well as electrical/mechanical contractor. The interpretation that is being sought to be given by the learned counsel for the petitioners is not plausible or permissible. 9. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this petition. The same is accordingly dismissed. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge SRINAGAR 02.01.2025 Aasif Whether the order is speaking Yes/No Whether the order is reportable Yes/No P a g e | 5 WP(C) No. 28/2025 CM NO. 65/2025 Caveat 3140/2024