Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Magpie Hydel Construction vs Union Territory Of Jandk Th on 6 August, 2025
Serial No. 123
Supplementary Cause List
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
WP(C) No. 1855/2025
CM No. 4898/2025
Caveat No. 1771/2025
Magpie Hydel Construction
Operation Industries Pvt. Ltd
...Petitioner/Appellant
Th. its MD.
Through: Mr. Zaffar Ahmad Shah, Senior Advocate with
Mr. A. Hanan, Advocate.
Vs.
Union Territory of JandK th.
Secretary.
...Respondent
Through: Mr. Mohsin Qadiri, Sr. AAG
Mr. Bikramdeep Singh, Dy. AG.
Mr. Faheem Nissar Shah, GA.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHD YOUSUF WANI, JUDGE.
ORDER
06.08.2025 Caveat 1771/2025 Registry has put up the Caveat Application bearing No. 1771/2025 titled "Jammu and Kashmir Power Development Corporation and Ors. Vs. M/S. Magpie Hydel Construction Operation Industries Pvt. Ltd", which does not pertain to the subject matter of the instant petition.
Registry is directed to remove the same from the physical as well as digital file of this case and deal with the same in accordance with law. WP(C) No. 1855/2025 Caveat No. 1771/2025 Page No.1 WP(C) No. 1855/2025 CM No. 4898/2025
1. Mr. Mohsin Qadri, Sr. AAG with Mr. Bikramdeep Singh, ld. Dy. AG and Mr. Faheem Nissar Shah, GA appears and accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Z.A. Shah, learned Senior Advocate in respect of his prayer for grant of interim relief who contended that in the facts and circumstances of the case as pleaded in the petition, the petitioner-company has got a strong prima facie case made out in its favour as is explicit from the perusal of the main petition and the copies of documents enclosed with the same; that balance-of-convenience is also tilted towards the petitioner-company which is likely to suffer an irreparable loss in case the interim relief as prayed for is not granted.
The learned Senior Advocate, inter alia, contended that petitioner- company is aggrieved of the public invitation issued by respondent No. 2 with request for qualification and proposal (RFQ&RFP) competitive bidding process for development of 2.0 MW Suid, Dachin HEP Station, Kishtawar under "Swiss Challenge Method." That in terms of the said document, respondent No. 2 has invited online bids against the tender document to select competent, experienced and capable party/parties under Swiss Challenge Method (SCM) having the necessary technical competence, experience and financial strength for developing such project as individual power project (IPP) for a period of 40 years. That the projects are to be taken in terms of the policy for "development of micro/mini hydel power projects-211" issued vide Government Order No. 71-Stae of JK and Ors. of 2011. WP(C) No. 1855/2025 Caveat No. 1771/2025 Page No.2
He further contended that the petitioner-company made representations immediately after the advertisement notice was issued. That in the said representations, the petitioner-company has indicated that the sites can produce more electric power than 02 MW. That the advertisement notice mentions only 02 MW or less, which is against public interest and that the feasibility of the site has not been carried out efficiently and with application of mind. The learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that it is also not known whether the JAKEDA has at all referred the issue of feasibility and optimum production of electric power to any authority which can legitimately undertake such exercise. That if no exercise has been carried out by JAKEDA in terms of Clause 8.1, the entire exercise of advertisement is bad in law and liable to be quashed.
3. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents Mr. Mohsin Qadri, Sr. AAG submitted that the petitioner-company has got no prima facie case in its favour as alleged, balance-of-convenience also does not tilt towards it, and as such, the question of suffering from irreparable loss by it does not arise at all. The learned counsel submitted that the bids have been invited in terms of the policy of development of Micro/Mini Hydro Power Projects of 2011 sanctioned by the Government of Jammu and Kashmir vide order No. 71- Stae of JK and Ors. of 2011 dated 27.12.2011 and, as such, the petitioner cannot challenge the e-NIT dated 11.06.2025. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner-company did not participate in response to the e-tender in question and that without prejudice to the inability of the petitioner to challenge the tender process, the petition is otherwise also barred WP(C) No. 1855/2025 Caveat No. 1771/2025 Page No.3 as the Managing Director of the petitioner-company without the resolution from Board of Directors cannot maintain the same.
The learned Sr. AAG further submitted that the institution of the writ petition is apparently actuated by malafides.
The learned Sr. AAG in support of his contentions placed reliance on a judgment of this Court titled "R6 Technologies Private Limited vs. UT of J&K and Ors in WP(C) No. 1347/2024" decided on 05.08.2024.
He also placed reliance on an authoritative judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled "Dale & Carrington Invt. (P) Ltd. and Anr. vs P.K. Prathapan and Ors (2005) 1 SCC 212."
4. List on 27th August, 2025.
5. In the meantime, subject to any vacation/modification upon consideration of objections and till further orders, the respondents may consider the grievance of the petitioner strictly in accordance with the law governing the field.
6. (MOHD YOUSUF WANI) JUDGE SRINAGAR:
06.08.2025 "Shahid Manzoor"WP(C) No. 1855/2025 Caveat No. 1771/2025 Page No.4