HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT SRINAGAR

WP(C) No. 693/2021 c/w

WP(C) No. 694/2021

Reserved On: 13^th of August, 2021.

Pronounced On: 17^th of August, 2021.

(i.) WP(C) No. 693/2021; CM No. 2048/2021:

M/S Shalimar Constructions

… Petitioner(s)

Through:

Mr M. A. Qayoom, Advocate with

Mr Mian Muzaffar, Advocate.

Versus

SKUAT (K) Shalimar, Srinagar & Ors.

… Respondent(s)

Through: -

Mr M. Y. Bhat, Senior Advocate with

Mr R. A. Bhat, Advocate for R-1 to 9; and

Mr N. A. Ronga, Advocate for R-10 to 13.

(ii) WP(C) No. 694/2021; 2049/2021:

M/S Fayaz Ahmad Bhat

… Petitioner(s)

Through:

Mr M. A. Qayoom, Advocate with

Mr Mian Muzaffar, Advocate.

Versus

SKUAT (K) Shalimar, Srinagar & Ors.

… Respondent(s)

Through: -

Mr M. Y. Bhat, Senior Advocate with

Mr R. A. Bhat, Advocate for R-1 to 9; and

Mr N. A. Ronga, Advocate for R-10 to 13.

CORAM:

Hon’ble Mr Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey, Judge.

(JUDGMENT)

01.

Both these Petitions involve similar questions of facts and the

law and are, thus, for the sake of convenience, decided by this common

Page 2 of 21

WP(C) No. 693/2021 c/w

WP(C) No. 694/2021

Judgment. For purpose of reference, the facts of WP(C) No. 693/2021 are

relied upon.

02.

The case of the Petitioner is that it had submitted the tender

documents for the works with respect to which tenders were invited by the

official Respondents in terms of E-Tender notices dated 28^th of November,

2020; 8^th of December, 2020; and 19^th of December, 2020, strictly in

accordance with the terms and conditions of the tender notices. Thereafter, the

official Respondents, as stated, entertained the tender documents of the

Petitioner-firm and, after opening of the tender documents, found the

Petitioner-firm to be the lowest bidder. However, instead of issuing allotment

orders in favour of the Petitioner-firm, the official Respondents, in terms of

communications/ notices dated 21^st of January, 2021, informed the Petitioner-

firm that before allotment order is issued in its favour, it is required to deposit

additional security at 5% and 4% of the advertised cost in the shape of

CDR/FDR/BG pledged to the Assistant Controller, Estates, as per the terms

and conditions of E-NIT under reference. The aforesaid notices dated 21^st of

January, 2021 are stated to have followed by letter dated 5^th of February, 2021,

wherein the official Respondents informed the Petitioner-firm that in addition

to 10% bill deposit, 20% more bill deposit shall be deducted from every

running bill and that the Petitioner-firm should deposit 5% additional security

deposit as per NIT. The Petitioner-firm is also claimed to have been asked to

file an Affidavit for completion of the project including all low rate items

Page 3 of 21

WP(C) No. 693/2021 c/w

WP(C) No. 694/2021

without deviation and not to request for bill deposit till completion of the

work. The Petitioner-firm was also told that the project needs to be completed

as per allotted time period and that in case of delay, 1% penalty per month

shall be imposed. Besides, it was also told that labour management plan is to

be maintained by the construction agency. The aforesaid letter dated 5^th of

February, 2021 was replied by the Petitioner-firm on 17^th of February, 2021,

wherein the Petitioner-firm stated that routine bill deposit of 10% was a norm

and acceptable to it, but, the additional bill deposit of 20% amounted to direct

violation of NIT and PWD Code of Works, thus not acceptable to the

Petitioner-firm. The Petitioner-firm also stated that the additional bill security

of 5% was not acceptable to it because as per the NIT, the Petitioner-firm had

not to deposit the additional bill security of 5% and, instead, it was 5% for

work at serial No. 1 and 4% for works at serial Nos. 2, 3 and 4. The Petitioner-

firm is also stated to have referred to various circulars on the subject issued

by the Governme