JUDGMENT :

Ali Mohammad Magrey, J.

Impugned in this appeal is Judgment dated 18th of November, 2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in the Writ Petition filed by the Appellant/ Writ Petitioner bearing WP(C) No. 2343/2021, whereby and whereunder the Petition of the Appellant/ Writ Petitioner stands dismissed.

2. The material facts leading to the filing of this appeal, as emerge from the pleadings on record, are that the Appellant/ Petitioner-firm claims to be a renowned Architectural-cum-Structural Consultancy, having expertise in the field. It is stated that in terms of communication No. PS/MD/7983-8005 dated 2nd of March, 2016, the Respondent-JKPCC empaneled as many as 23 Architectural and Structural firms for providing the Consultancy about the designs and structures, etc., of the buildings intended to be constructed by it, wherein the Appellant/ Writ Petitioner claims to have figured at Serial No.10. It is also pleaded that ever since the said empanelment, the Appellant/ Writ Petitioner provided Consultancy for Designs and Structural works undertaken by the Government in the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir (now Union Territory) in regard to series of buildings, although no formal orders for providing Consultancy were being issued, but, under the agreed arrangement, a specified percentage calculated on the basis of cost of construction works was being assessed and paid. It is averred that the process of Consultation by the Respondent-JKPCC with the Appellant/ Writ Petitioner as regards the work put to tender by medium of the impugned NIT dated 3rd of November, 2021 was already initiated way back in the year 2018 and that the Appellant/ Writ Petitioner was selected for providing and, accordingly, provided the Drawing and Structural Consultancy on the basis of his previous performance and comparative assessment of suitability among the approved Consultants who were empaneled along with the Appellant/ Writ Petitioner. In these circumstances, the Appellant/ Writ Petitioner, being aggrieved of the impugned tender notice, filed Writ Petition bearing WP(C) No. 2343/2021 seeking quashing of the impugned tender notice. Simultaneously, the Appellant/ Writ Petitioner had also sought a direction in the name of the Respondent-JKPCC to continue Consultancy allotted to it in respect of the construction tendered vide the impugned NIT; as well as to pay the amount already due towards the Appellant/ Writ Petitioner from the Respondent-JKPCC. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the Counsel for the parties, in terms of Judgment dated 18th of November, 2021, dismissed the Petition filed by the Appellant/ Writ Petitioner as being devoid of any merit. It is this Judgment of the learned Single Judge that has been assailed by the Appellant/ Writ Petitioner in this appeal on the grounds projected in the memo of appeal.

3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length; perused the pleadings on record; and have considered the matter.

4. At the first blush, what requires to be stated, herein this case, is that as per settled legal position, the tender issuing authority is the best judge of its interests/ needs and that it is always open to the said authority to suitably put the work required to be completed to tender as per the relevant terms and conditions so as to best serve its purposes. Whenever a particular work is put to tender, it might hurt the interests of someone or the other, but, for that reason, the said tendering process cannot be labelled as malafide or arbitrary. It needs no repetition that the Courts are expected to exercise judicial restraint in interfering with the administrative action, particularly in the matter of tender or contract. Ordinarily, the soundness of the decision taken by the tender issuing authority ought not to be questioned, but the decision-making process can certainly be subject to judicial review. The soundness of the decision may be questioned, firstly, if the decision made is so arbitrar