Validity Of Administrative Orders Must Be Judged On Initial Reasoning, Not Through Affidavits Filed Later: J&K High Court

Quashing the cancellation of a contract awarded to one M/s Mohd Asif for deep drilling and installation of hand pumps in Poonch district, Justice Sanjay Dhar reasoned,

“.. An order bad in the beginning may by the time it comes to Court on account of a challenge get validated by additional grounds later brought out. Thus, it is not open to the respondents to supply an additional ground for their impugned action by urging the same in their reply affidavit”

The petitioner, M/s Mohd Asif, had successfully bid for the execution of deep drilling and installation of hand pumps at 23 locations in Poonch district. The contract was awarded through allotment orders issued on November 18, 2024. However, on November 26, 2024, the Executive Engineer of the Jal Shakti Department (Mechanical) cancelled the allotment, citing a lack of funds as the primary reason.

The petitioner challenged this cancellation, alleging that the decision was influenced by mala fide intentions. He contended that the cancellation was orchestrated by a Minister whose political rival was the petitioner's father. The petitioner also argued that the funds for the project were indeed available, and the cancellation caused him significant financial loss, as he had already commenced work on the project.

Justice Dhar meticulously examined the facts and legal arguments presented by both parties and observed that the only reason cited in the cancellation letter was the non-availability of funds. However, the petitioner had provided documentary evidence, including administrative approvals and RTI responses, proving that the funds had been allocated and were available for the project.

The Court emphasized that administrative approval for a project is granted only when funds are available. The fact that the funds were released on BEAMS on January 1, 2025, did not negate their availability at the time of cancellation. The Court thus found the respondents' contention regarding the delayed release of funds to be specious and without merit.

Justice Dhar also addressed the respondents argument about the petitioner's failure to execute the agreement within seven days. The Court noted that this ground was not mentioned in the cancellation letter and was introduced only in the reply affidavit.

Citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Mohinder Singh Gill vs. The Chief Election Commissioner (1978), the Court held that the validity of an administrative order must be judged solely by the reasons mentioned at the time of its issuance. Additional grounds cannot be introduced later to justify the order, the bench underlined.

Furthermore, the Court highlighted that once the respondents accepted the petitioner's bid and issued the allotment orders, a binding contract was formed between the parties. The respondents, being officers of the State, were duty-bound to act fairly and reasonably, it added.

The Court cited the Supreme Court's ruling in R. D. Shetty vs. International Airport Authority (1979), which held that the actions of State authorities, even in contractual matters, must meet the tests of fairness and reasonableness.

Concluding that the respondents had acted arbitrarily by cancelling the allotment without issuing a notice to the petitioner or providing him an opportunity to be heard, the Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the cancellation letter. The respondents were directed to permit the petitioner to execute the work in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract.

Case Title: M/s Mohd Asif Vs UT Of J&K

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 108

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment