Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Mohd Yousuf Shan vs Union Territory Of J And K And Others on 19 July, 2023
Author: Moksha Khajuria Kazmi
Bench: Moksha Khajuria Kazmi
Sr. No. 192
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
ATJAMMU
WP (C) No. 1826/2023
CM No. 4248/2023
Cav No. 1248/2023
Mohd Yousuf Shan .....Appellant/Petitioner(s)
Through :- Mr. Gagan Basotra, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Mohinder Kumar, Advocate.
v/s
Union Territory of J and K and others .....Respondent(s)
Through :- Mr. Ravinder Gupta, AAG.
Mr. Sunil Sethi, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Ravi Abrol, Advocate.
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, JUDGE
ORDER
Caveat No. 1248/2023 stands discharged.
In the instant petition, the petitioner herein, is aggrieved of the e-NIT No. 11 of 2023-24 dated 03.06.2023, issued by the respondent No.1 for the construction of Link road from Bus stand Ukhral to Rahoon Top Under NABARD RIDF XXVIII as well as the financial bid opened in favour of the private respondent by virtue of which he has been declared as Ll with respect to the above mentioned work vide ID no. 2023_PWDJK_214899_1.
It is further stated that official respondents without considering the objections filed by the petitioner in order to give undue benefits to the private respondent have rejected the objections of the petitioner on the ground that "The statements showing the value of existing commitments and ongoing works as well as the stipulated period of completion remaining for each of the work listed should be countersigned by the Engineer-in-Chief not below the rank of an Executive Engineer or equivalent".
2
Mr. Gagan Basortra, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the official respondents have different yardsticks in the same matter in which they have rejected the candidature of the petitioner whereas they have accepted the candidature of private respondent on the basis of the same document not countersigned by the Engineer-in-Chief in terms of mandatory provisions mentioned in e-Nit dated 03.06.2023.
Mr. Sunil Sethi, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 has stated that contract has been allotted to respondent No. 3 on 15.07.2023 and respondent No. 3 is executing the work as per the e-NIT since 17.07.2022. However, Mr. Basotra, learned senior counsel has argued vehemently and stated that allotment order was neither uploaded nor was within his knowledge.
After arguing for a while Mr. Basotra, learned Sr. Advocate seeks withdrawal of the instant petition with liberty to file fresh.
Mr. Sunil Sethi, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 opposing to the request of learned counsel for the petitioner for withdrawal of the petition, however, submits that the petitioner may challenge to the extent of technical evaluation result of the bid.
Mr. Ravinder Gupta, learned AAG appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, is directed to furnish copy of the allotment order dated 15.07.2023 to learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of the day.
In view of the above, the instant petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.
(MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI) JUDGE JAMMU 19.07.2023 Renu