IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

AT SRINAGAR

Reserved on:18.02.2021

Pronounced on: 24.02.2021

OWP No.1312/2016

Abdul Salam Nath & Ors.

...Petitioner

Through: -Mr. A. R. Bhat, Advocate, vice Mr. M. Y.

Bhat, Sr. Advocate.

Vs.

Union of India & Ors.

…Respondents

Through: - Mr. T. M. Shamsi, ASGI.

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE.

JUDGMENT

1)

Petitioners have challenged tender notice dated 30^th

of October, 2016, whereby respondent No.3 has invited

tenders from contractors to run shops/services at Air

Force Station, Srinagar. The petitioners have also

challenged the policy dated 12.08.1988 framed by

respondents for retendering of these shops/services. A

further direction has been sought by the petitioners upon

respondents to permit them to conduct the business in

their respective shops without any interference with a

direction that the respondents be restrained from

MOHAMMAD ALTAF BHAT

2021.02.25 14:15

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

2 OWP No.1312/2016

charging any enhanced rent and that no further tender

notice in respect of those shops should be issued.

2)

The case of the petitioner is that they have been

allotted various shops at Air Force Station by the

respondents after they had participated in the tendering

process. According to the petitioners, they are running

their business from these shops for years together and

some of them even since 1980’s and that they are

regularly paying rent to the respondents in terms of

conditions of agreement. The petitioners have placed on

record copies of some of the agreements executed by

them with the respondents as also some rent receipts.

According to the petitioners, although they happen to be

the tenants of the respondents, yet the respondents issue

tender notices after every four years but in terms of the

policy in vogue, the petitioners, as tenants, are given

preference and they are being permitted to continue their

tenancy in respect of these shops on payment of higher

rent.

3)

It is averred that in the year 2016, respondents

issued a tender notice that was published in Daily

Greater Kashmir on 29.08.2016, whereby tenders were

invited for running 41 shops/services as mentioned in

the said tender notice for one year i.e. from 1^st of October,

MOHAMMAD ALTAF BHAT

2021.02.25 14:15

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

3 OWP No.1312/2016

2016 to 30^th of September, 2017. The tenders were to be

opened on 08.09.2016. The petitioners are stated to have

responded to this tender notice. According to the

petitioners,

when

the

tenders

were

opened

on

08.09.2016, they were found successful as per the terms

and conditions of the policy in vogue and they were

informed that after opening of the tenders, they will

continue to remain in possession of the shops. Thus, the

petitioners invested more money in their business on the

representation of the respondents.

4)

It is averred by the petitioners that they were given

to understand that their rent will be hiked by 10% to

which the petitioners agreed but when they approached

the respondents for deposition of the rent, the same was

refused by the respondents on the ground that the

matter is under consideration of the higher authorities.

5)

It is the case of the petitioners that the respondents,

with a mala fide intention and in order to favour some

blue eyed persons, have issued the impugned tender

notice thereby inviting tenders for the shops/services

that they are under the occupation of the petitioners.

6)

The petitioners have challenged the action of the

respondents on the ground that they have a relationship

MOHAMMAD ALTAF BHAT

2021.02.25 14:15

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

4 OWP No.1312/2016

of tenant and landlord w