LAWS(J&K)-2022-5-105

RAJESH SHARMA Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF J&K

Decided On May 30, 2022
RAJESH SHARMA Appellant
V/S
Union Territory Of JAndK Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners as well as the private respondents are the successful bidders as per the result declared of the tender in pursuance to e-Auction Notice No. 08 of 2021 dtd. 29/7/2021 whereby the official respondents invited tenders from Fish traders of the UT of J and K for leasing of the wholesale shops and retail outlets. The petitioners allege that the private respondents had participated in the bid though they were not eligible for the same as they had participated in the tender by disguising themselves as different entities though they were in fact not so as stated in the petition. The respondents intend to allot corner shops to the petitioners in an arbitrary manner and thus put the petitioners in dis-advantageous position. The petitioners seek quashment of the successful bid of the respondents in pursuance to list issued on 20/8/2021 and also seek the allotment of the shops amongst first four shops in the wholesale cum retain fish market Narwal, Jammu.

(2.) The objections to the petition have been filed by the official respondents as well as private respondents. The common stand of the respondents through their objections is that the private respondents were eligible to participate in the tender and they have been declared successful bidders as per norms; that the private respondents were not barred from participating in the tender on the basis that they for all practical purposes are one and the same entities as alleged in the petition. The shops have been allotted in pursuance to the bid accepted of the petitioners as well as the respondents as per the norms. The bids of the petitioners were much lower to that of the private respondents and therefore they cannot seek parity qua the allotment of shops with the private respondents. The petitioners have no case against the respondents and therefore the petition is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the file.