SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(J&K) 1712

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
SMART EDGE TECHNO TH.ITS PROPRIETOR – Appellant
Versus
UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K TH.COMMR/SECTY (TOURISM) AND OTHERS – Respondent
WP(C) 3212 / 2025



##PAGE1##

P age | 1

S. No.130

Suppl. List

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT SRINAGAR

WP (C) No. 3212/2025

CM No. 8642/2025, 8804/2025

Smart Edge Techno

House No. 2, Welcome Lane,

Water Reservoir Road,

Brane Nishat, Srinagar

Through its Proprietor

Faisal Shahdad

Aged about 33 years

S/o Mohammad Iqbal Shahdad

R/o Brane, Nishat, Srinagar.

… Petitioner

Through: Ms. Syed Ainain Qadiri, Advocate.

V

1. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir through

Commissioner/Secretary to Government, Tourism

Department, J&K Government, Civil Secretariat,

Srinagar/Jammu;

2. Managing Director,

Tourism Development Corporation,

Jammu & Kashmir Government,

Srinagar/Jammu;

3. General Manager (Operations),

Tourism Development Corporation,

Srinagar;

4. Chief Accounts Officer/Financial Advisor,

Tourism Development Corporation,

J&K Government, Srinagar/Jammu.

… Respondents

Through: Mr. Jahangir Ahmad Dar, GA.

CORAM

HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE

O R D E R

24.12.2025

1. In this Petition, filed under Article 226, the petitioner seeks the

following reliefs:

“By a writ of Mandamus

a) The Respondents be directed to release the

due/admitted balance amount of Rs.12,41,500/- (Twelve

Lakhs Forty One Thousand and Five Hundred) in favour

WP (C) No. 3212/2025, CM No. 8642/2025, CM No. 8804/2025

##PAGE2##

P age | 2

of the petitioner for the work order supplied by him

alongwith 18% interest from the date the same has been

withheld by the Respondent-Corporation.

b) The Respondents be burdened with exemplary costs

and damages of Rupees five lakhs for the harassment,

agony, loss and injury suffered by the petitioner for the

inaction of the Respondents for withholding the balance

payment unnecessarily or at least they may be directed to

pay the interest amount paid by the petitioner from the

date the payment has been stopped by the respondents.”

2. The background facts enumerated in the petition, under the shade

and cover of which the aforesaid relief is being claimed, are that the

Jammu & Kashmir Tourism Department through the Managing

Director, Tourism Development Corporation, TRC, Srinagar, placed

supply orders upon the petitioner through Government-e-Marketplace

(GeM) and the petitioner claims to have supplied one Audio System

with MIC and Speakers, 28 LG Hot and Cold AC, 4 Gas Pillar Heater,

1 LED 75 inch, 2 LED 55 inch, 1 Outdoor Display, 1 Conference Table

with Chairs, supplied in pursuance of supply order no. GEMC-

511687741116675 dated 17.03.2023, and 2 HP Intel Core i5 All in One

PC with 23.8 Inch Display Windows 11 supplied under a separate

supply order, viz., Order no. GEMC-511687753811414 dated

04.04.2024 for an amount of Rs.39,85,000/- and Rs.1,58,000/-

respectively, totaling Rs.41,43,000/- as per approved rates,

specifications, terms and conditions. It is stated that against the said

outstanding amount, the respondents have released only Rs.27,43,500/-

instead of Rs.41,43,000/- and withheld the balance amount of

Rs.12,41,500/- which has not been released to the petitioner,

compelling him to knock the portals of this Court by way of the instant

writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Government

of India has enjoined upon all the Government Departments in all the

States, which includes the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir to

make purchases through online mechanism viz. GeM, and it is in

compliance thereof that Respondent-Corporation issued the supply

WP (C) No. 3212/2025, CM No. 8642/2025, CM No. 8804/2025

##PAGE3##

P age | 3

orders through GeM in favour of the petitioner in the years 2023 and

2024, however, the outstanding payment has yet to be cleared by the

respondents. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the

petitioner is being unnecessarily made to run from pillar to post under

the garb of bureaucratic wranglings.

4. Ms. Syed Ainain Qadiri, learned counsel for the petitioner, to

cement her case set up in the instant writ petition, would submit that

since the work/supplies carried out by the petitioner has been

advantageously utilized by the respondents, therefore, the reten

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top