J&K High Court Declares Work Done By Contractor As Illegal, Says He Acted In Connivance With Executive Engineer To Manipulate Tender Process
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court has highlighted the high-handedness of the Executive Engineer in colluding with the appellant to procure the contract illegally. The court said that the work, if any, executed by the appellant was without any authority, and he was not entitled to any money in exchange for the work done.The court stated that once Respondent No.1 was declared the lowest bidder,...
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court has highlighted the high-handedness of the Executive Engineer in colluding with the appellant to procure the contract illegally. The court said that the work, if any, executed by the appellant was without any authority, and he was not entitled to any money in exchange for the work done.
The court stated that once Respondent No.1 was declared the lowest bidder, it was not open to the Executive Engineer to reverse this decision and disqualify him by favoring the appellant, who was the second-lowest bidder. The court noted that this disqualification was made while the matter was sub judice before the writ court.
A bench of Justices Sanjeev Kumar, Justice Puneet Gupta observed that "this Court is of the prima facie view that the entire exercise undertaken by the Appellant, right from approaching the Lok Adalat till the alleged execution of part of work by the Appellant, was orchestrated by the Appellant in connivance with the then Executive Engineer concerned"
The court observed that the disqualification of Respondent No.1 and the issuance of the Letter of Intent (LOI) to the appellant was done by leveraging the Lok Adalat award passed in favor of the appellant. However, the said Lok Adalat award was rightly set aside by the writ court as it was passed in the absence of Respondent No.1 (who was the lowest bidder).
The appellant had approached the Lok Adalat, challenging the technical qualification of Respondent No.1, arguing that the latter failed to submit the latest Income Tax Return (ITR) as per tender conditions and was, therefore, not entitled to receive the contract.
The court observed that “The award of the Lok Adalat, which was leveraged by the Executive Engineer to issue the Letter of Intent (LOI) in favor of the appellant, was an outcome of a crafty exercise undertaken by the appellant with the active connivance of the Executive Engineer to bag the contract.”
The court noted that even as per the Letter of Intent issued in favor of the appellant, he was only asked to make proper arrangements to take over the execution of the work 'upon issuance of a formal letter of allotment.'
The court said that it was evident that the portion of work executed by the appellant was done without any legal authority. The court further observed, “That being the clear picture emerging from the documents on record, we are left with no other option but to hold that the appellant is not entitled to even a single penny for the work, if any, executed by him without any authority of law.”
BACKGROUND
The dispute arose from the tendering process for public works contracts issued by the Jal Shakti (PHE) Department, Budgam, under e-NIT. Respondent No.1 and the appellant participated in the bidding process, which involved a two-stage evaluation: First is Technical evaluation (Submission of required documents) and second step involves the Financial bid evaluation (Selection of the lowest bidder (L-1).
Respondent No.1 was declared L-1, and the appellant was L-2. The appellant challenged the technical qualification of Respondent No.1, arguing that he failed to submit the latest Income Tax Return (ITR) as per tender conditions.
Initially, the Executive Engineer upheld Respondent No.1's qualification. However, the appellant approached the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA), Budgam, seeking intervention. The matter was referred to the General Lok Adalat, which issued an award in favor of the appellant, effectively nullifying Respondent No.1's selection. Respondent No.1 was not made a party to the Lok Adalat proceedings.
The Executive Engineer acted on the Lok Adalat's award and issued a Letter of Intent (LOI) to the appellant. Respondent No.1 challenged this decision before the writ court, which set aside the Lok Adalat award and ordered a fresh tendering process. The appellant then filed these Letters Patent Appeals (LPAs), challenging the writ court's judgment.
APPEARANCE:
Syed Faisal Qadri, Senior Advocate with Mr Faizan Farooq Mir, Advocate. For Appellants
Abdul Rashid Malik, Sr. AAG with M/S Ilyas Nazir Laway, GA and Younis Hafiz, Assisting Counsel; and Mr Ibrahim Mehraj, Advocate. FOR Respondnets
Case-Title: Hakeem Mudasir vs M/S Khanday Construction,
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 121
