JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner, while claiming to be a registered Engineering Private Limited Company, submits that in pursuance of the e-NIT dated 23rd of August, 2019 inviting e-tenders for the construction of Pre-Fabricated structures at various locations for accommodation of CAPF issued by the respondents, submitted its bid in electronic format within the stipulated time period as prescribed in the notice itself. It is stated that the respondents, on evaluation of the technical bid, declared the petitioner company as ‘non-responsive’ on the ground that the petitioner company having not followed the instructions incorporated in the notice in their entirely. The action of the respondents in declaring the petitioner company as ‘non-responsive’ and respondent No.4 as ‘responsive’ is assailed by the petitioner company in this petition on varied grounds detailed out in the petition itself.

2. Mr Shahbaz Sikander Mir, the learned counsel for the petitioner company, submits that due to limited access to the internet services in the Valley, the petitioner company could not upload some of the requisite documents along with the notice as prescribed under Condition Nos. 2-vi, vii, 23 and 24-2 of the notice, however, on 9th of September, 2019, the petitioner company, in order to meet the said requirement, submitted the hardcopy of the same in the office of the official respondents. It is stated that the respondent No.3, in order to accommodate M/S ABRAQ Infrastructures LLP/ respondent No.4 herein, did not allow the petitioner company to participate in the bidding process by declaring the petitioner company as ‘non-responsive’. The learned counsel has proceeded to state that the aforesaid company/ respondent No.4 has been incorporated in the year 2017 and, thus, does not fulfill the general conditions prescribed in the notice, but, despite that the said company has been declared as ‘responsive’.

3. Mr B. A. Dar, the learned Senior Additional Advocate General, submits that since the petitioner company did not comply with the terms of the e-NIT by uploading all the relevant documents, therefore, the petitioner company was rightly declared as ‘non-responsive’. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General further submits that the terms of the NIT cannot be ignored as being redundant or superfluous and that they carry some meaning and necessary significance. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General has further proceeded to state that the term of the NIT is a decision taken by the Department which should be respected by all concerned at all costs. It is also submitted that the lawfulness of that decision can be questioned on very limited grounds, but the soundness of the decision cannot be questioned as otherwise this Court would be taking over the function of the tender issuing authority, which it cannot.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and considered the matter.

5. When this matter was taken up on motion hearing, i.e. on 17th of September, 2019, the Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and in order to ascertain the genuineness or otherwise of the contentions raised by the petitioner, directed Mr Dar, the learned Senior Additional Advocate General, to appear in the matter on behalf of the respondents and produce the records substantiating the eligibility of respondent No.4 in declaring the said company as ‘responsive’ in pursuance of e-NIT dated 23rd of August, 2019 (supra) before the Court tomorrow, the 18th of September, 2019.

6. Today, Mr Dar, the learned Senior Additional Advocate General, has produced the photocopy of the record as directed by the Court which, on perusal, is returned to him in the open Court.

7. At the very outset, what requires to be stated is that the official respondents have declared the petitioner company as ‘non-responsive’ on the ground that the petitioner company has not followed certain terms and conditions prescribed in the NIT itself. In the matters of Co