The cancellation of allotment orders was arbitrary and violated principles of natural justice, necessitating adherence to fair procedures in administrative actions.

JUDGMENT :

1. Through the medium of instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged communication No.GWD/4878-81 dated 26.11.2024 issued by respondent No. 4 whereby allotment orders issued in favour of the petitioner for execution of ‘Deep Drilling of 125 MM dia Bore holes by using ODEX method including, providing, installation, testing commissioning of Mark-II Hand Pumps and construction of platforms at 23 & 13 number locations in District Poonch on Turkey basis (EPC) under District Capex Budget’ have been cancelled.

2. As per case of the petitioner, he had participated in the tender process which was set in motion pursuant to e-NIT Nos. GWD/84 of 20204-25 and GWD/89 of 2024-25 dated 12.10.2024 for construction of Deep Drilling of 125 mm dia Bore Holes etc at different locations in District Poonch. It has been submitted that vide allotment orders No. GWD/4611-15 and GWD/4616-20 dated 18.11.2024 the work was allotted in his favour after he had emerged as the successful bidder. However to the dismay of the petitioner vide impugned communication dated 26.11.2024, respondent no. 4 has cancelled the aforesaid allotment made in favour of the petitioner.

3. The petitioner has challenged the action of the respondents on the grounds that the allotment orders have been cancelled at the behest of the Minister Incharge by exercising the power in a malafide manner. It has been submitted that because father of the petitioner had recently contested the Assembly Elections against the said Minister, as such, he pressurized the respondents to cancel the allotment orders made in favour of the petitioner. It has been further contended that the reason assigned by the respondents for cancellation of the orders is not available to them, because the requisite funds were available to the respondents for execution of these works. It has been further submitted that after the issuance of the allotment orders the petitioner had already started execution of the works, as such cancellation of the impugned allotment orders has caused huge financial loss to him.

4. The respondents in their reply to the instant petition have submitted that after the allotment of works in favour of the petitioner, a meeting of the contract committee was held in which after thorough discussion and deliberations in respect of the allotments made in favour of the petitioner, it was observed that the funds allocated for Drilling of Hand Pumps under PRI grants for district Poonch have not been released for most of the locations through BEAMS till date, due to which the work will not be completed. It was also observed that this may lead to dispute between the firms and the department, in future regarding release of payment for the work done if allotted to the petitioner-firm. It was further observed that the petitioner has not executed the agreement within stipulated 07 days of the allotment order in respect of the allotted works as laid down in Clause (22) of the terms and conditions of the e-NIT which shows lackadaisical approach of the petitioner. Thus, the Committee recommended cancellation of the allotment orders made in favour of the petitioner along with another firm, namely, M/s Hyper Techno Drillers. In short, as per the version of the respondents, due to non-availability of the funds and due to non-execution of the agreement by the petitioner-firm with the respondent-department, the allotment orders made in favour of the petitioner-firm came to be cancelled.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

6. From the pleadings of the parties, it comes to the fore that it is not in dispute that pursuant to participation of the petitioner in E-NIT dated 12.10.2024 the works which were subject matter of these E-NITs were allotted to the petitioner in terms of the two allotment orders dated 18.11.2024.The respondents claim that they cancelled these allotment orders because of non-availability of funds. It is further case of the respondents th