GHULAM MUSTAFA BATT Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The e-NIT No. 3 dtd. 9/6/2021 was floated by the respondent No. 3 for execution of various timber logging operations viz. Extraction, Off road transportation and road transportation of marked trees available in compartments/group of compartments as mentioned in Annexure-I including the compartments Nos. 31ab/Keshwan and 35/D Keshwan for FC Division Kishtwar. Appellant being aggrieved of participation and acceptance of the technical bid of respondent No. 7 for compartments mentioned above, pursuant to the e-NIT No. 3 of 2021-22/EAST dtd. 9/6/2021, filed a writ petition bearing WP(C) No. 1372/2021. During the pendency of the writ petition, the final bid of the private respondent No. 7 in response to e-NIT mentioned above, was accepted and sanction was issued in favour of respondent No. 7 by the respondent No. 5 for both the compartments mentioned above vide two different sanction orders each dtd. 1/9/2021. Agreements were also executed and work orders were issued in favour of respondent No. 7. As such, another writ petition bearing WP(C) No. 2005/2021 was also filed by the appellant challenging the sanction orders, agreements and work orders issued in favour of respondent No. 7. Both these writ petitions were dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide common judgment dtd. 25/5/2022.

(2.) The judgment dtd. 25/5/2022 (supra) has been impugned by the appellant by way of two different intra-court appeals i.e. LPA No. 54/2022 and LPA No. 55/2022. As the fate of LPA No. 55/2022 is dependent upon that of LPA No. 54/2022, so we will first of all consider the LPA No. 54/2022.

(3.) The judgment dtd. 25/5/2022 has been impugned by the appellant on the grounds that the learned Single Judge had declined to look into the documents on record to demonstrate that respondent No. 7 was not eligible because he was not entitled to get A-Class Contractor Certificate and as such, could not have been considered for execution of works in question. It is also stated that the respondent No. 7 applied for issuance of A-Class Contractor certificate on 19/6/2021 and same was issued on 26/6/2021 i.e. within seven days, so it is a clear case of malice but the learned Single Judge has rejected the said contention of the appellant. It is further stated that the learned Single Judge has rejected the contention of the appellant that as per Clause 5 of the Regulation 4 of Regulations of 2014, the certificate was required to be issued by the Superintendent of Police after CID verification only and further the learned Single Judge has erred in holding that the assessment and the satisfaction of the authorities cannot be scrutinized by the Court very minutely. In nutshell, the claim of the appellant is that the learned Single Judge has not rightly appreciated the contentions raised by the appellant.