1 S. No. 127 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP(C) No.746/2025 Mohamamd Shafi Mir …Petitioner/Appellant(s) Through: Mr. Shah Ashiq Hussain, Advocate. Vs. UT of J&K and Ors. ...Respondent(s) Through: CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE O R D E R 02.04.2025 ORAL 1. In the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner herein has sought a writ of Certiorari for quashing Tender Notice No. Est/OS/DDA/564/1732-36 dated 18.03.2025 issued by respondent 3. 2. Facts pleaded by the petitioner in the instant petition would reveal that respondent 3 herein issued a tender Notice dated 18.03.2025 for installing, operating, managing of adventure activity of paragliding on licence basis for a period of 3 years “as is where is basis” at Dodhpathri and that in the said tender notice inter-alia provided that bidder should have minimum two years experience in the field of adventure in paragliding. It is being stated that the petitioner responded to the tender notice, however, the tender of the petitioner came to be rejected without assigning any reason. Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record available on file. 3. Perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner stands conveyed the rejection of his tender/bid while intimating him to check status and remarks in respect thereof with the Dashboard while providing yet a liberty to the petitioner to participate in the process and re-submit the 2 documents as per PQ criteria maintained by the auctioneer before 24.03.2025 as also in the event he the petitioner faces any issue, contact the help desk for further assistance. 4. Record of the petition, however, reveals that the petitioner has neither seemingly obtained/placed the remarks for rejection of his tender/bid nor has he pleaded that he, the petitioner re-submitted the documents after the rejection of his bid in terms of the liberty granted to him by the respondents. In presence of the aforesaid factual position obtaining in the matter the other grounds of challenge urged in the instant petition that the conditions of experience incorporated in the tender documents were unfair, unreasonable and have no nexus with the adventure activity notified in the tender notice pale into insignificance, in that, same cannot be looked into by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction, in that, the Court has no such expertise in the matter. 5. Viewed thus, for the aforesaid reasons, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. (JAVED IQBAL WANI) JUDGE SRINAGAR 02.04.2025 Ishaq