The validity and registration of the partnership deed under the J&K Registration Act were crucial in determining the petitioner's eligibility for the tendering process and the rejection of its bids.

Tashi Rabstan, J.

Through the medium of OWP No. 910/2015, the petitioner is seeking quashing of NIT No. CEJ/PMGSY/344, dated 13.06.2015 for construction of road from Basantgarh to Khennad Block Dudu, NIT No. CEJ/PMGSY/344 of 2015-16, dated 13.06.2015 for construction of road from Kainthgali Bariote road km 26 to Lower Basnote, Block Dudu and NIT No. CEJ/PMGSY/345 of 2015-16, dated 15.06.2015 pertaining to construction of road from Dera Baba to Tanda Block Reasi. In OWP No. 219/2013 also, the petitioner has questioned the same contract works.

2. Since common question of law and facts are involved in both the petitions and pertain to the same contract works, therefore, both the petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. The facts, as averred in the writ petitions, are that the petitioner-firm has been undertaking a number of road works under Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana Scheme in the State of J&K since 2005. It is averred that in pursuance to Notice Inviting Tender No. 01/PMGSY/CE/J, dated 05.05.2010, the petitioner-firm applied for six contract works and it was found to be the lowest tenderer in as many as three contract works. It is averred that the issuance of formal allotment order got delayed as the Law Department opined that the Partnership Deed executed between the partners of the petitioner-firm in the year 2005 was not a valid document as the same had not been registered in the Court of Law nor registered with the Registrar of Firms, however, the subsequent deed dated 31.05.2010 executed between the partners of petitioner-firm was a valid deed. It is averred that based on the opinion of the Law Department, respondent No. 2 issued fresh NIT dated 24.11.2011, against which petitioner-firm filed OWP No. 1620/2011 and the same got stayed. Further, it is averred that, this Court vide judgment dated 30.11.2012 left it to the respondents to take a final decision as regards the eligibility of the petitioner-firm to participate in the tendering process while taking into consideration the works allotted to the petitioner-firm during the period 2005 to 2008. However, respondent No. 2 held that the Partnership Deed of the petitioner-firm executed in the year 2005 was not a valid document as the same had not been registered in the Court of Law nor registered with the Registrar of Firms. Respondent No. 2, however, opined that the Partnership Deed of 2010 of the petitioner-firm was a valid document, but still the petitioner-firm could not be allowed to participate in the bidding process being a new firm. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 issued three fresh NITs for the aforementioned works, which the petitioner-firm challenged in OWP No. 219/2013 (now the same has been clubbed with the present petition). When OWP No. 219/2013, was listed before this Court on 20.03.2013, Mrs. Shekhar, learned counsel appearing for respondents made a statement that the impugned NITs in the said writ petition are not being acted upon. It is averred that although while hearing OWP No. 219/2013, learned counsel appearing for respondents assured the Court that the impugned NITs were not being acted upon and as the said petition was pending for final hearing, the respondents issued fresh NITs bearing Nos. CEJ/PMGSY/344, dated 13.06.2015, No. CEJ/PMGSY/344 of 2015-16, dated 13.06.2015 and No. CEJ/PMGSY/345 of 2015-16 dated 15.06.2015 for the same contract works, which are already subject matter of OWP No. 219/2013. It is averred that aggrieved of the same, the petitioner-firm has filed OWP No. 910/2015, challenging all the three NITs and this Court vide order dated 03.07.2015 directed that the impugned tendering process may be taken forward, but no allotment shall be made. Since both the petitions pertain to the same contract works, this Court vide order dated 26.11.2015 directed to list the same together.

4. The contention of learned counsel for petitioner-firm is that even if it is assumed that the partnership deed dated 22.11.2005 was