HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT JAMMU

WP(C) No.3399/2025

Reserved on: 14.05.2026

Pronounced on: 30.05.2026

Uploaded on: 30.05.2026

M/s RKG LNA IPL JV ….Petitioner(s)

Through :- Mr. Rahul Pant, Sr. Advocate with

Ms/ Amit Bhardwaj & Anirudh Sharma,

Advocates

V/s

Union Territory of J&K and others ….Respondent(s)

Through :- Mr. Raman Sharma, AAG with

Ms. Saliqa Sheikh, Advocate

Mr. R.K.Gupta, Sr. Advocate with

Mr. Udhay Bhaskar, Advocate

CORAM:

HON’BLE MS.JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZM I, JUDGE

JUDGMENT

1. By this petition, the petitioner herein has sought quashing of the

decision dated 20.11.2025, taken by the respondent, whereby the bid

submitted by the petitioner in pursuance of e-NIT No.22 of 2025-26

dated 27.09.2025 for the work “Pollution Abatement and Conservation

of River Jhelum at Chuntkul and Gawakadal area in Srinagar (J&K)”

under NRCP including 12 months of free trial run and 05 years of

O&M after free trial run, has been technically rejected/declared non-

responsive. Petitioner is also seeking a direction upon the respondents

to declare its bid as responsive technically, to open the financial bid

WP(C) No.3399/2025 2

and to award the contract in question to L-1 after opening the financial

bid of the petitioner as well.

Factual Matrix

2. The petitioner is a joint venture of M/s LNA Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., a

company duly incorporated under the Companies Act. M/s R.K.Gupta

& Co. is a registered partnership firm having its registered office at

H.No.50-B, Sector-A, Subash Nagar, Jammu.

3. E-NIT No.22 of 2025-26 dated 27.09.2025 came to be issued by

respondent No.3-Executive Engineer, S&D Division 1

st

Urban

Environmental Engineering Department, Srinagar, thereby inviting

bids/tenders comprising of two covers A&B from the eligible bidders

for “Pollution Abatement and Conservation of River Jhelum at

Chuntakul and Gawkadal areas in Srinagar (J&K)” under NRCP

including 12 months of free trial run and 5 years of O&M after free

trial run. The estimate cost of the work was shown to be Rs.55.11

crores and estimated cost of operation and maintenance (O&M) was

indicated as Rs.6.45 crores. Thus, total estimate cost of the project was

Rs.61.56 crores. To be eligible to participate in the bidding process,

bidder was required to be a registered company/firm/super class

contract in terms of standing rules and renewed for the current financial

year 2025-26 . Even Joint Ventures were eligible to apply for the work

in question. In terms of the e-NIT, following was the eligibility criteria

fixed in the e-NIT:

“2. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR BIDDERS

Qualifying Requirement:

WP(C) No.3399/2025 3

I. Should be registered company under Companies

Act/partnership/proprietor firm/LLP/JV etc with registered office in

India.

II. Construction Experience

A. In case Bidder is applying as Single Entity/Individual

contractors—

i. General Construction Experience

Successfully completed similar works during last Ten years ending last day

of month previous to the one in which applications are invited should be

either of the following: --

a) Three similar completed works/Projects where cost of Project is not

less than the amount equal to 40% of Estimate Capital cost.

OR

b) Two similar completed works/Projects of similar nature where cost

of project is not less than the amount equal to 50% of Estimate Capital cost.

OR

c) One similar completed project where cost of project is not less than

the amount equal to 80% of Estimated Capital cost.

Similar Nature of Work Means- Construction of Sewerage Treatment Plant

of capacity not less than 2.5 MLD along with laying of Sewer Network of

length not less than 7.5 KM.

ii. Personal capabilities i.e. List of Manpower as per Annx Manpower

ii. Equipment capabilities i.e. List of Equipment as per Annx

Equipment

iv. Key production rates i.e. Bid Capacity as described below.

B. In case Bidder is applying as Joint Venture-Pre-qualification of JV

i. Each of the JV partner (Except Lead bidder) should individually

possess:-

Experience of successfully execution of a STP along with laying of

Sewer Network where the cost of project is at least 25% of

Estimated Capital Cost of the project put to tender.

ii. JV members are “jointly and severally responsible and liable” in a

contract. For prequalification, the JV should fulfill the criteria

specified above. The attributes to be evaluated will be the same as

for Single Entity/individual contractor; however, certain parameters

up to the specified limits have to be essentially met by them

collectively, some by the lead partner, and some by the other

partner, as briefly described below:”

WP(C) No.3399/2025 4

4. The bidding documents had to be downloaded by 27

th

September,

2025, submission of bids starts on 27.09.2025 from 5.00 pm and the

bid submission end date was 20.10.2025 upto 4 pm. The petitioner

being fully eligible as a joint venture in M/s LNA Infra Projects Pvt.

Ltd. was incorporated as a lead partner whereas M/s R.K.Gupta & Co

was second partner, submitted its bid. It is stated that with a view to

oust the competitors from bidding process and to favour some blue-

eyed persons, a corrigendum came to be issued on 27.10.2025 i.e. the

last date of submission of tender thereby extending the last date of

submission of bid upto 31.10.2025 upto 2 pm. The requirement of

experience was also changed from ten years to seven years. According

to the petitioner, this decision was taken on 27.10.2025 at about 3.00

pm whereas the petitioner had submitted its bid prior to that. It is

alleged that the same was done with the oblique motives to ensure that

other bidders including the petitioner could be ousted from the bidding

process.

5. It is stated that the official respondents have deliberately changed the

criteria at the eleventh hour in order to ensure that the petitioner is

ousted from the bidding process, unaware of the fact that the petitioner

is otherwise eligible in terms of the second experience certificate of

M/s R.K.Gupta and Co., which had been uploaded along with the bid.

WP(C) No.3399/2025 5

The petitioner is stated to have requested respondent No.2 for

restoration of the original qualification criteria vide communication

dated 28.10.2025. Reliance has been placed on similar NITs for the

similar nature of works, wherein, the bidders were required to have

executed the similar works during the last seven years, which

subsequently came to be changed to ten years by way of corrigendum.

6. The Joint Venture had submitted its bid along with requisite

experience. So far as lead partner M/s LNA Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. is

concerned, it has the eligibility as it had the requisite experience during

the last seven years. Similarly, the other partner in the Joint Venture

i.e. M/s R.K.Gupta & Co. too had the experience. The experience

certificate dated 06.06.2018, uploaded by the Joint Venture, had been

issued by the Executive Engineer, Sewerage & Drainage Division

(West), Jammu for successfully completion of the work “Designing,

Providing, Constructing, Ere ting, Commissioning start-up of 4.00

MLD capacities Sewerage Treatment Plant (STP) on Sequential Batch

reactor (SBR) technology including laying of Trunk Sewerage laterals

& House chamber/connections complete Sewerage Scheme for Migrant

Towanship Jagti at Nagrota, Jammu.”

7. Alongwith its bid, the petitioner has also uploaded experience

certificate issued in favour of M/s R.K. Gupta & Co. for successfully

completing the work namely “Pollution abatement of River Devika and

Tawi at Udhampur Town (J&K) under NRCP, GOI (Sewerage

Package) amounting to Rs.1760 lacs” as sub-contractor of M/s BGCC

Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi.

WP(C) No.3399/2025 6

8. The petitioner was issued notice on 17.11.2025 to explain its position

on the ground that earlier the petitioner was issued a show cause

because as per the official respondents, the principal contractor BJCC

has stated that the scope of work, which was sub-contracted to M/s

R.K.Gupta & Co. was extra-ordinary declared and was never

completed in full for which ten percent liquidated damages have been

imposed on the sub-contractor. The show cause notice was replied

stating therein that the documents furnished by the petitioner are

genuine,, true and duly certified by concerned authority, hence cannot

be disregarded. Subsequently, the petitioner has been declared as

technically non-responsive/disqualified on the basis of the minutes of

meeting held on 20.11.2025, which action of the official respondents

has been impugned in this writ petition.

9. It has been argued by the learned senior counsel appearing for the

petitioners that the whole exercise to change the criteria has been done

to oust the petitioner from the competition; technical bid of the

petitioner has been declared non-responsive just to favour respondent

No.5.

10. Per contra, in the reply filed by the official respondents, it is stated that

in the two e-NITs, on which reliance has been placed by the petitioner,

experience had been increased from seven years to ten years, on the

specific relaxation granted by the Empowered Contract Committee

(ECC). It is further stated that due to an inadvertent oversight, said

relaxation was erroneously carried forwarded in the subject e-NIT,

which discrepancy was timely identified and rectified through

WP(C) No.3399/2025 7

corrigendum dated 27.10.2025, restoring the experience criteria to

seven years strictly in terms of the provisions of the Manual of

Procurement of Works-2022.

11. According to the official respondents, the petitioner has submitted his

bid only on 30.10.2025 i.e. after the issuance of corrigendum and

subsequently modified the bid on 06.11.2025. The allegation of the

petitioner that the change in eligibility criteria was carried to favour

some blue-eyed and to oust the petitioner has been specifically denied.

Insofar as the experience certificate relied upon by the petitioner is

concerned, it is stated that even if the experience certificate of M/s

R.K.Gupta & Co for work of STP at Jagti executed as a Joint Venture

for an amount of Rs.12.25 crores with 74% share is considered, the

petitioner would still not satisfy the eligibility criteria because 74% of

Rs.12.25 crores comes to Rs.9.06 crores. It is stated that even after

escalating the cost to present level values by applying 7% annual

enhancement, the escalated amount comes to Rs.13.51 crores.

However, as per the qualification criteria, each partner of Joint Venture

must independently possess experience of 25% of the estimated project

cost. The project cost of tendered work is 55.11 crores, of which 25%

comes to Rs.13.78 crores, it is stated, even on merits even if the

certificate of 2018 is taken into account, the petitioner still falls short of

mandatory experience of completing 25% value of the contract. With

regards to the purported experience of Rs. 17.60 crores, the official

respondents have specifically denied that that the said amount

represents a single work and while evaluating the completion

WP(C) No.3399/2025 8

certificates of the petitioner, it was verified from the issuing authority

that the work “Pollution Abatement of River Devika and Tawi at

Udhampur” were comprised of two different work orders issued by two

different Chief Engineers. Both the principal contractor and the issuing

authority have been asked for the portion of work they have executed.

From the principal contractor, it was found that the petitioner has

completed only 60-70% of 4 MLD STP work whereas integral part i.e.

design of STP was framed by BGCC-principal contractor and from the

issuing authority it was found that the firm has executed 91% of work.

12. It is stated that after verification from both from Principal Contractor

M/s BGCC Pvt. Ltd. and from the concerned Executive Engineer

concerned, it becomes clear that the amount relates to two different

works, which have been deliberately projected as one M/s R.K.Gupta

& Co.. Further, according to the official respondents, experience

certificate relating to Patnitop work valued at Rs.11.60 crores is also

non-qualifying since the work was found to be in JV from issuing

authority with 70:30 share, which on evaluation comes below the

required 25% threshold.

13. Claim of the petitioner has also been opposed by respondent No.5, who

in its objections has stated that the contract committee after threadbare

discussion on the financial bid, has accepted the financial bid of

respondent No.5, as a consequence whereof, Letter of Intent dated

03.12.2025 stood issued in its favour. It is stated that M/s R.K.Gupta

& Co., partner of the petitioner Joint Venture, neither had the

experience of successful execution of a STP along with laying of sewer

WP(C) No.3399/2025 9

network whose cost is 25% of the estimated capital cost of the project

nor it had the general construction experience as required under Clause

2(II) A of the e-NIT.

14. Mr. Rahul Pant, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has

stated that in terms of E-NIT No.30 of 2024-25 dated 20.03.2025 for

survey design and execution of Sewerage scheme Katra Town under

Pollution Abatement of River Ban Ganga at Katra, petitioner was

declared L-1 and respondent No.5 as L-3. In a subsequent E-NIT

No.32 of 2024-25 dated 24.03.2025 for Survey Design and Execution

of Sewerage Scheme Samba Town under Pollution Abatement of River

Basanter at Samba, petitioner was again declared as L-1 and

respondent No.5 as L-2. The official respondents deliberately cancelled

the e-NITs only to accommodate respondent No.5. In this e-NIT also

official respondents, in order to declare respondent No.5 as L-1, have

rejected the technical bid of the petitioner.

15. Learned counsel for the official respondents has produced copy of the

order dated 16.12.2025 by virtue of which experience certificate of the

petitioner has been cancelled. The Executive Engineer, who was

present in the Court at the time of hearing, stated that experience

certificate of the petitioner was cancelled on the ground that procedure

of verification was not followed before issuance of the certificate by

the then Executive Engineer.

16. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on

record.

WP(C) No.3399/2025 10

17. Scope of judicial review in tender matters has been considered by

Supreme Court in its various decisions. Hon‟ble the Supreme Court in

the case of Tata Cellular Vs Union of India, 1994 6 SCC 651, while

considering the scope of judicial review in tender matters, elucidated

following principles:

1) The modern trend points to judicial restraint in

administrative actions.

2) The Court does not sit as a court of appeal but merely

reviews the decision-making process.

3) The Court lacks the expertise to correct administrative

decisions. If a review is permitted, it would be substituting

its decision, which may be fallible.

4) The terms of the invitation to tender cannot be open to

judicial scrutiny as they are in the realm of contract.

Decisions to accept or award contracts are reached

through several tiers and are qualitative, often made by

experts.

5) The Government must have the freedom of contract. Fair

play in administrative actions is necessary, but decisions

must be free from arbitrariness, bias, or mala fides.

6) Quashing decisions can impose heavy administrative

burdens and unbudgeted expenditures on the

administration and lead to increase and unbudgeted

expenditure.

18. After Tata cellular (supra), there is a long series of judgments of the

Supreme Court on the scope of judicial review in tender matters, some

of them are Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa, (2007) 14 SCC 517,

Midhigan Rubber v. State of Karnataka, (2012) 8 SCC 216, Afcons

Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpul Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., (2016)

16 SCC 818, M/s Agmatel India Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Resoursys

Telecom, 2022 Legal Eagle (SC) 98, Airport Authority of India v.

WP(C) No.3399/2025 11

Centre for Aviation Policy, Safety & Research (CAPSR), (2022)

SCC Online SC 1334.

19. Hon‟ble the Supreme Court in the case of Balaji Ventures Pvt. Ltd.

V. Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd., 2022

LiveLaw (SC) 295 has observed that “the eligibility criteria in the

tender document applied to all bidders. The owner has the freedom to

set criteria unless they are arbitrary or mala fide. Bidders cannot

challenge criteria that do not suit them. Courts have limited roles in

reviewing tender conditions, as it is an offer to compete”. In Airport

Authority of India (supra), it has been observed by the Supreme Court

that “tender terms are within the domain of the tenderer and not open to

judicial scrutiny unless arbitrary, discriminatory, or mala fide. The

Government must have a free hand in setting terms.”

20. The principles which emerge from a series of decisions of the Supreme

Court are that:

i. The tender inviting authority is free to set eligibility

criteria and conditions unless they are arbitrary,

discriminatory, or mala fide.

ii. The author of the tender document is best suited to

understand and interpret its requirements.

iii. If two interpretations are possible, the author’s

interpretation must be accepted.

iv. If the tender authority follows healthy standards and

norms, court interference is limited.

v. Courts reviewing the decision-making process, not act as

courts of appeal.

WP(C) No.3399/2025 12

vi. There should be no cancellation of awards due to

procedural errors or wrongful exclusion; unsuccessful bidders

can seek damages in civil court.

vii. Courts have no role in imposing fair, wiser, or logical

decisions on tender authorities.

viii. In most cases, the Supreme Court upholds the views of

the tender inviting authority unless the terms are arbitrary,

discriminatory, or mala fide.

21. In view of the settled legal position, the scope of judicial review in

tender matters is only to the extent of arbitrariness, mala fide or

discrimination.

22. The allegation of the petitioner is that the eligibility criterion in respect

of construction experience has been changed from ten years to seven

years after the petitioner has submitted its bid. The corrigendum,

extending the last date of submission of bids to 31.10.2025 upto 2 pm

and changing of construction experience during last seven years instead

of ten years came to be issued on 27.10.2025 whereas the petitioner has

submitted its bid on 30.10.2025. In this view of the matter, one of the

grounds raised by the petitioner to assail the rejection of his technical

bid on the allegation that the change in experience criteria was effected

when the petitioner already stood submitted its bid falls flat, as such,

deserves rejection.

23. The other ground raised by the petitioner is with regard to the

construction experience certificate dated 17.07.2023, to execute

similar nature of works amounting to Rs.17.60 Crores, which fulfils the

eligibility criteria of seven years has been disputed by the official

WP(C) No.3399/2025 13

respondents. According to the official respondents, the amount does

not represent a single work; the amount relates to two different works.

24. Experience is sought from the tenderer/bidder so as to assess its

capability to execute the work for which bids are invited. To assess the

capability of a bidder is a technical issue, which ought to be left to be

decided by the experts in the field.

25. The Supreme Court in Silppi Constructions Contractors v. Union of

India and others, (2020) 16 SCC 489, has held thus:

“19. This Court being the guardian of fundamental rights is duty

bound to interfere when there is arbitrariness, irrationality,

mala fides and bias. However, this Court in all the aforesaid

decisions has cautioned time and again that courts should

exercise a lot of restraint while exercising their powers of

judicial review in contractual or commercial matters. This

Court is normally loathe to interfere in contractual matters

unless a clear-cut case of arbitrariness or mala fides or bias

or irrationality is made out. The Courts must realize their

limitations and the havoc which needless interference in

commercial matters can cause. In contracts involving

technical issues the courts should be even more reluctant

because most of us in judges' robes do not have the

necessary expertise to adjudicate upon technical issues

beyond our domain. As laid down in the judgments cited

above the courts should not use a magnifying glass while

scanning the tenders and make every small mistake appear

like a big blunder. In fact, the courts must give „fair play in

the joints‟ to the government and public sector undertakings

in matters of contract. Courts must also not interfere where

such interference will cause unnecessary loss to the public

exchequer.”

WP(C) No.3399/2025 14

26. Supreme Court in the matter of N.G Projects Limited vs. Vinod

Kumar Jain and Others, (2022) 6 SCC 127 has held that the Court

should refraim from imposing its decision over the authority on the

issue of acceptance or non-acceptance of the bid of a tenderer and that

even if the Court finds there is total arbitrariness or that the tender has

been granted in a mala fide manner, still the Court should refrain from

interfering in the grant of tender but instead relegate the parties to seek

damages for wrongful exclusion rather than to injunct the execution of

the contract. The view taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

above judgment is as under:

"23. In view of the above judgments of this Court, the writ court

should refrain itself from imposing its decision over the decision of

the employer as to whether or not to accept the bid of a tenderer.

The Court does not have the expertise to examine the terms and

conditions of the present day economic activities of the State and

this limitation should be kept in view. Courts should be even more

reluctant in interfering with contracts involving technical issues as

there is a requirement of the necessary expertise to adjudicate upon

such issues. The approach of the Court should be not to find fault

with magnifying glass in its hands, rather the Court should examine

as to whether the decision-making process is after complying with

the procedure contemplated by the tender conditions. If the Court

finds that there is total arbitrariness or that the tender has been

granted in a mala fide manner, still the Court should refrain from

interfering in the grant of tender but instead relegate the parties to

seek damages for the wrongful exclusion rather than to injunct the

execution of the contract. The injunction or interference in the

tender leads to additional costs on the State and is also against

public interest. Therefore, the State and its citizens suffer twice,

firstly by paying escalation costs and secondly, by being deprived of

the infrastructure for which the present day Governments are

expected to work."

27. The award of contract is essentially a commercial transaction and in

arriving at a commercial decision considerations which are paramount

are commercial considerations. In the instant case, the core issue

WP(C) No.3399/2025 15

revolves around the experience of the petitioner, which is essentially a

technical issue and in view of the ratio of the judicial pronouncements

made by the Supreme Court, technical issues shall be best left to be

decided by the experts in the field as the judges do not have the

necessary expertise to decide on the technical issues.

28. In view of the above, the writ petition is found to be without any merit,

hence dismissed.

Jammu:

30.05.2026

Vinod

) (Moksha Khajuria Kazmi)

Judge

Whether the judgment is reportable: No