The main legal point established in the judgment is the authority of the tendering entity to reject or accept tenders based on compliance with the tender document requirements, and the limited role of judicial review in contract matters.

Ali Mohd. Magrey, J.:-

1. These two writ petitions concern the tendering process initiated by the official respondents pursuant to NIT No. 12 of 2014 dated 04.06.2014 for supply of various uniform items for use of the Police personnel in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Writ petition, OWP No. 216/2015, has been filed by seven of the tenderers; whereas the writ petition, OWP No. 220/2015, has been filed by two other tenderers, challenging the decision dated 05.02.2015 of the Technical Evaluation Committee holding the petitioners to be non-responsive, and the Comparative Chart Report dated 06.02.2015 prepared by the State Level Purchase Committee (SLPC). In order to state the grievance of the petitioners in each of the two petitions in a crystalline manner, the backdrop facts need to be briefly stated.

2. The Director General of Police, J & K, respondent No. 2 in both these petitions, for and on behalf of the Governor of the Jammu and Kashmir, issued NIT No. 12 of 2014 dated 04.06.2014 inviting e-tenders from original manufactures or their authorised dealers having proper authorization of the manufacturer in that behalf for supply of certain uniform items indicated in the detailed SBD and BOQs. The download of NIT was scheduled to start on 05.06.2014 and it was provided that the tenders shall be submitted online on J & K State e-Procurement Portal before 1500 hours on 05.08.2014. It was further provided therein that the tenders, viz., the technical bids will be opened online on 07.08.2014 at 11.00 hours at Police Headquarters, Peerbagh, Srinagar. The detailed tender documents (SBD) with terms and conditions were made available on the State e-Procurement Portal mentioned therein. The aforesaid dates were subsequently extended.

3. In all 50 tenderers responded. The Technical and Evaluation Summary was uploaded on 21.10.2014 and the BOQ Comparative Chart Report was uploaded on 22.10.2014. Certain tenderers, feeling aggrieved of the technical evaluation summary and rejection of their technical bids filed writ petitions in the two wings of this Court. In view of the orders ultimately passed in those writ petitions, I feel it unnecessary to give the details of those writ petitions, except to say that the petitioners in the first of the present two writ petitions had been declared as responsive; whereas the petitioners in the second writ petition herein had been declared as non-responsive and, therefore, they filed OWP No. 1474/2014. Further, it is stated that the private respondents herein, too, had been declared as non-responsive in the evaluation of the technical bids. In fact, three of them, namely, M/s. R.L. Enterprises, M/s. Sahiba Enterprises and M/s. Bamba Handloom Industries, too, had filed a writ petition, OWP No. 1797/2014 wherein the official respondents filed their objections defending the rejection of their technical bids on the ground of shortcomings.

4. However, on 22.11.2014, the Court passed the following orders in one of the writ petitions, being OWP No. 1474/2014, titled M/s. Associated Business Corporation v. State of J & K, which had been filed by the petitioners in the writ petition, OWP No. 220/2015 herein;

"1. Respondents, alive to genuineness of grievances set out in petition, have decided to revisit the issue.

2. It is pertinent to point out that petitioner was thrown out from competition after his technical bid was rejected and respondents proceeded to open price bid.

3. Once respondents have decided to revisit the issue as regards technical evaluation committee report and address petitioner's grievance by conducting technical evaluation afresh, the price bid(s) opened will be of no consequence.

4. In view of the decision to revisit the issue, petitioner and his other like aspirants including petitioners in OWP No. 1617/2014 titled New Alpine Traders & another versus State and others, who responded to contract and were earlier excluded from consideration, may get right to participate in tendering process a