Sr. No.02 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR LPA No.137/2025 CM No.4121/2025 M/s Beigh Constructions …Petitioner(s)/Appellants. Through: Mr. M. I. Qadiri, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Owais Shafi, Advocate. Vs. Union Territory of J&K and others. ….Respondent(s) Through: Mr. A. R. Malik, Sr. AAG. CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE O R D E R 14.07.2025 01. Aggrieved by an order dated June 17, 2025, the appellant (petitioner before the Writ Court) is in intra-court appeal under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. 02. Office of the Executive Engineer, R&B Division, Kulgam, vide NIT dated April 18, 2025, invited e-tenders for construction of “3 Pre-Fab Huts at Govt. Degree College Kulgam”. In response, the appellant submitted its bid. Per Clause (1) of the tender document, the participants were required to furnish the earnest money deposit (EMD) @ 2% of the advertised cost in the shape of CDR/FDR/BG pledged to Superintending Engineer (R&B) Circle Kulgam (Tender Receiving Authority). However, the appellant was declared non-responsive. For the FDR it had submitted was pledged to the Superintending Engineer without specifically mentioning the name of Tender Receiving Authority [Superintending Engineer (R&B) Circle Kulgam]. On the contrary, for respondent no.5 was declared responsive and adjudged the lowest tenderer (L1), he was assigned the contract. Which led the appellant to approach this Court vide WP(C) No. 1321/2025. 03. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant had submitted the Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) for Rs.3,10,760/- as EMD. However, owing to space constraints, the printed FDR did not fully mention the Tender Receiving Authority’s designation. Though a hand written correction was attested by the issuing bank. But to no avail. He asserts that apparently there did exist a prima facie case in favour of the appellant. Further, the price bid submitted by the appellant being lower than the rates at which the contract has been assigned to private respondent, would have financial ramifications. 04. As to this Mr. A. R. Malik, learned Sr. AAG, submits that apparently the appellant failed to meet the requirement of Clause (1) of the tender document and was thus, rightly declared non-responsive. And, the learned Single Judge upon hearing the appellant as also the counsel for respondents 1 to 4 did not find any prima facie case at that stage, to grant the interim prayer. However, it was specifically observed that the issuance of work contract/ allotment order in favour of respondent no.5 as also the execution of the contract shall be subject to the decision of the writ petition. He submits that the application of the appellant as regards interim relief is pending consideration and the respondents 1 to 4 shall submit response thereto. And shall also file statement of facts/ objections to the main petition. 05. Concededly, as indicated above, objections/ response on behalf of respondents 1 to 4 is yet to be submitted. Respondent no. 5 has not been served so far. The matter is pending before the Writ Court on July 28, 2025. That being so and faced with the factual position, indicated above, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that the matter being time sensitive, the appeal be disposed of only with a direction to the Writ Court to consider and decide the matter at the earliest. 06. In response, Mr. A. R. Malik, learned Sr. AAG, submits that reply to the stay application as also the objections on behalf of respondents 1 to 4 shall be submitted three days prior to the adjourned date with advance copy to learned counsel for the appellant. And to avert any further delay, he submits the appellant may also, if so advised, serve the private respondent ‘Dasti’ or through the respondent authorities by moving an appropriate application in this regard before the Writ Court itself. 07. In the wake of the position sketched out above and the matter being time sensitive, we request the learned Single Judge that upon completion of service and pleadings of the parties, try and decide the application for interim relief that is pending consideration or if possible even the main case as expeditiously as possible. 08. Disposed of. (RAJNESH OSWAL) (ARUN PALLI) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Srinagar 14.07.2025 Abdul Qayoom, Secy. Abdul Qayoom Lone I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 15.07.2025 19:06