Judgment

Sanjay Dhar, J.—Petitioners have challenged tender notice dated 30th of October, 2016, whereby respondent No.3 has invited tenders from contractors to run shops/services at Air Force Station, Srinagar. The petitioners have also challenged the policy dated 12.08.1988 framed by respondents for retendering of these shops/services. A further direction has been sought by the petitioners upon respondents to permit them to conduct the business in their respective shops without any interference with a direction that the respondents be restrained from charging any enhanced rent and that no further tender notice in respect of those shops should be issued.

2. The case of the petitioner is that they have been allotted various shops at Air Force Station by the respondents after they had participated in the tendering process. According to the petitioners, they are running their business from these shops for years together and some of them even since 1980’s and that they are regularly paying rent to the respondents in terms of conditions of agreement. The petitioners have placed on record copies of some of the agreements executed by them with the respondents as also some rent receipts. According to the petitioners, although they happen to be the tenants of the respondents, yet the respondents issue tender notices after every four years but in terms of the policy in vogue, the petitioners, as tenants, are given preference and they are being permitted to continue their tenancy in respect of these shops on payment of higher rent.

3. It is averred that in the year 2016, respondents issued a tender notice that was published in Daily Greater Kashmir on 29.08.2016, whereby tenders were invited for running 41 shops/services as mentioned in the said tender notice for one year i.e. from 1st of October, 2016 to 30th of September, 2017. The tenders were to be opened on 08.09.2016. The petitioners are stated to have responded to this tender notice. According to the petitioners, when the tenders were opened on 08.09.2016, they were found successful as per the terms and conditions of the policy in vogue and they were informed that after opening of the tenders, they will continue to remain in possession of the shops. Thus, the petitioners invested more money in their business on the representation of the respondents.

4. It is averred by the petitioners that they were given to understand that their rent will be hiked by 10% to which the petitioners agreed but when they approached the respondents for deposition of the rent, the same was refused by the respondents on the ground that the matter is under consideration of the higher authorities.

5. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondents, with a mala fide intention and in order to favour some blue eyed persons, have issued the impugned tender notice thereby inviting tenders for the shops/services that they are under the occupation of the petitioners.

6. The petitioners have challenged the action of the respondents on the ground that they have a relationship of tenant and landlord with the respondents, as such, the respondents cannot invite tenders for these shops/ services without terminating tenancy of the petitioners in accordance with law; that the action of the respondents is arbitrary and discriminatory, inasmuch as no such practice of periodical tendering is being resorted to by other similar departments like Army; that the respondents are estopped from issuing tender notice after extending promise to the petitioners that their contracts will be extended subject to hike of 10% rent; that the impugned policy of the respondents where under periodical re-tendering of the shops and services is being undertaken by them is violative of doctrine of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation; that the impugned tender notice is a result of mala fides so as to evict the petitioners and to adjust blue eyed persons of the respondents.

7. The respondents have resisted the petition by filing r