Authority: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu

Order Date: 21 August 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioner: Ratyal Constructions (P) Limited, registered at UGF‑8, P‑5, Ocean Plaza, Sector‑18, Noida, represented by Senior Advocate Mr. Ravinder Sharma and Advocate Mr. Aditya Vikram Sharma.
  • Respondents: (1) Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir through Principal Secretary, Home Department, Civil Secretariat; (2) Executive Engineer, Police Construction Division, Police Headquarters, J&K, Jammu; (3) Naseeb Buildcon India Private Limited, represented by Managing Director, through Senior AAG Ms. Monika Kohli and Advocate Ms. Sagira Jaffar.
  • Proceedings: Petition under WP(C) No. 2275/2026, CM No. 4908/2026 challenging the rejection of the petitioner’s technical bid in an e‑tender (e‑NIT) dated 23‑06‑2026 for construction of a Police Post at Thakrakote, Reasi.
  • Key Dates & Communications:
  • 15‑07‑2026 – Respondent No.2 notified petitioner of non‑responsive status for failing to upload required Civil/Electrical Registration Cards.
  • 16‑07‑2026 – Petitioner replied, stating it had uploaded the electric contractor licence issued by the Government of NCT Delhi.
  • 17‑07‑2026 – Respondent reiterated non‑responsive finding, citing non‑upload of the prescribed registration cards.
  • 18‑08‑2026 – Court ordered respondents to submit the financial bids of all bidders.
  • Financial Bids Issue: Senior AAG Ms. Monika Kohli produced the financial bids of the four bidders but reported that the petitioner’s financial bid could not be opened due to certain technical reasons.
  • Bid Ranking: Petitioner was identified as the L‑2 bidder (second lowest) in the financial evaluation.

Final Outcome

  • The Court held that adjudicating the petitioner’s contention would be futile because the petitioner was not the L‑1 (lowest) bidder and therefore could not derive any benefit even if the writ were granted.
  • The petition was dismissed as being devoid of merit, and no relief was granted to the petitioner.

Topics: Public Procurement, Judicial Decision