##PAGE1##

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU &h475 KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT JAMMU

WP(C) No.3449/2025

Reserved on: 24.12.2025

Pronounced on: 30.12.2025

Uploaded on : 31.12.2025

M/s Romesh Construction Co., 112-D, Sainik Colony, Jammu

Through its proprietor Romesh Chander, Age 61 years

S/o Sh. Om Parkash

R/o Sector-D, Sainik Colony, Jammu ....Petitioner(s)

Through:-M/s N.D.Qazi and Waseem Akram Mir,

Advocates

V/s

1. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir

Through Commissioner/Secretary PWD (R&B),

Department, Civil Secretariat, Jammu.

2. Chief Engineer, PWD (R&B) Department, Jammu.

3. M/s New Hi-Tech Works, Jammu

Through its proprietor. ...Respondent(s)

Through:- Mr. Ravinder Gupta, AAG for R-1 to 2

Mr. R.K.Gupta, Sr. Advocate with

Mr. Udhay Bhaskar, Advocate for R-3

Coram: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, JUDGE

JUDGMENT

1. By way of instant writ petition, the petitioner has invoked

extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court vested under Article 226

of the Constitution of India, to quash Technical Evaluation Result

bearing No.CEJ/TS/12932 dated 03.12.2025 issued in reference to e-

NIT No.15 of 2025-26 dated 14.10.2025, whereby respondent No.3

has been shown as responsive bidder despite not fulfilling the terms

and conditions stipulated in the e-NIT, as he has uploaded the

affidavit which was not duly attested by the Judicial Magistrate 1^st

Class/Executive Magistrate, which violates mandatory Clause 2.2.1

2

WP(C) No.3449/2025

and Note 2.2.1(a) of SBD. A further direction is sought upon

respondent No.2 not to open the financial bid in respect of above said

e-NIT till outcome of the writ petition or till objections filed by the

petitioner to the technical evaluation are considered by respondent

No.2.

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. The case of the petitioners, as projected in the writ petition, is that

respondent No.2 has issued e-NIT No.15 of 2025-26, dated

14.10.2025, whereby e-tenders were invited from the approved and

eligible contractors for the work namely, “Development of Central

Courtyard at Mubarak Mandi Heritage Complex, Jammu”. The

submission of bids started on 14.10.2025, last date of submission of

bids was 03.11.2025. In response to the e-NIT, seven bidders

including the petitioner, submitted their bids. The technical evaluation

committee, upon evaluation, issued the impugned technical evaluation

result by virtue of which, bids of four bidders came to be rejected as

non-responsive.

3. It is stated that the Executive Engineer, PWD(R&B) PD-II, one of the

member of the technical evaluation committee, has commented that

respondent No.3, who figures at serial No.2 in the responsive column,

does not fulfill the condition at serial No.9(i) of Clause 2.2.1 of SBD

and also Rule 173(xii) of GFR, 2017. According to the petitioner,

respondent No.3 also lacks the basic mandatory provisions to qualify

3

WP(C) No.3449/2025

for the financial bid, due to his failure to upload the affidavit duly

attested by the 1^st Class Judicial Magistrate/Executive Magistrate

because the affidavit loaded by respondent No.3 bears only seal of the

Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class without any signatures. The grievance of

the petitioner is that despite lacking the eligibility criteria, name of

respondent No.3 has been put in the responsive column in the

impugned technical evaluation result, which is indicative of the fact

that respondent No.2 is giving undue benefit to respondent No.3.

4. Per contra, respondent Nos.1 and 2 resisted the claim of the petitioner

by filing their reply. In the reply, it is stated that during technical

evaluation of the tenders for the work “Development of Central

Courtyard at Mubarak Mandi Heritage Complex, jammu, it was

observed that four, out of seven bidders, did not conform to the SBD

conditions for the reasons shown against each of them in the

Technical Evaluation Result. According to respondent Nos. 1 and 2,

respondent No.3 conforms to all the major SBD conditions viz-a-viz

financial capability as per the requirement and experience in similar

nature of works. He had enclosed all the affidavits, as p