The e-tender process and the highest bidder's right to possession were upheld, and legal principles of natural justice and useless formality were cited in the decision-making process.

Dhiraj Singh Thakur, J.

1. This Letters Patent Appear has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 18.5.2017 passed by the writ court in OWP No. 637/2017 whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner/respondent No. 4 herein, has been allowed. Briefly stated the material facts are as under:

2. The Jammu Development Authority (for short, 'JDA') issued e-tender notice vide e-NIT No. JDA/II/e-NIT/2015-16/56 dated 16.9.2016, inviting bids for a parking lot at Maheshpura Chowk Near K.C. Theater, Jammu from eligible contractors and firms. Petitioner/respondent No. 4 being eligible applied for the same and was found to be the highest bidder at Rs. 3,56,250/-. The said amount appears to have been deposited by the petitioner, based whereupon, an allotment was made in favour of the petitioner w.e.f., 14.12.2016 to 13.12.2017 for a period of one year. Physical possession of the parking lot, however, was not handed over to the petitioner, which forced the petitioner to file a writ petition bearing OWP No. 637/2017, seeking a writ of mandamus to the respondents to handover the possession of the parking lot in question.

3. The above said writ petition was allowed by virtue of judgment and order impugned dated 18.05.2017. The court noticed that an agreement had been executed between the JDA as also the petitioner/respondent No. 4 in regard to the contract in question, based whereupon, it directed the respondent No. 2-JDA to handover the possession of the parking lot to the petitioner within a period of one week.

4. The appellant is a Mini Bus Workers Union, who claims a right over the parking lot on the ground that a similar agreement had also been executed between the JDA and the Union on 01.09.2010, pursuant whereto the appellant was operating the parking lot.

5. It was stated that without impleading the appellant as a party-respondent in the writ petition, the petitioner had without any resistance from the JDA, succeeded in the writ petition and obtained an order against the JDA for handing over the possession of the parking lot to the petitioner even when the same was not with the JDA. It was in those circumstances that the appellant, who was not a party to the writ petition was granted permission to challenge the judgment and order impugned dated 18.5.2017 by filing the present Letters Patent Appeal vide order dated 3.7.2017.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant urged that the appellant was in possession of the parking lot and was not a trespasser and, therefore, could not be evicted by the JDA on the strength of the orders passed by the writ court. The right to remain in possession despite the expiry of the period, as reflected in the agreement between the appellant and the JDA, as urged was, based upon the fact that similarly situate other unions, who were put in possession of other parking lots by the JDA continued to remain so without their parking spaces having been put to auction and re-allotment.

7. It was urged that the appellant had been condemned unheard and, therefore, rules of natural justice stood violated.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

9. Admittedly, the Jammu Development Authority had entered into an agreement with the appellant on 1st of September, 2010 in regard to the parking lot in question, which was to remain in force till 31.8.2011. The consideration, which was payable for this duration of one year was only Rs. 1,20,000/- @ Rs. 10,000/- per month plus applicable taxes.

10. Admittedly, in the e-tendering process conducted by the JDA, the highest bid submitted was that of the petitioner/respondent No. 4 herein, who paid an amount of Rs. 3,56,250/- in regard to the parking lot in question.

11. Equally untenable is the argument that the principles of natural justice had been violated as no opportunity of being heard had been granted to the appellant before making the allotment in favour of the petitioner as even if such an opportunity had been granted, the result would have remained the same an