Bashir Ahmad Wani And Ors vs State Of J&K And Ors

1) Through the medium of instant petition, petitioners have sought certain reliefs, which are quoted below:

i. A writ of Prohibition, prohibiting the respondents or their favourite person in whose person the work has been issued, from lifting the

uprooted plants/trees along with pruned wood available at Fruit Plant Nursery Zawoora District Srinagar.

ii. A writ of mandamus directing the respondent No.1 to enquire into the matter with regard to the fraud committed by the respondents 2 to 4

relating to the opening of the tenders in absence of the tenderers including the petitioners in terms of tender notice issued by respondent

No.3 vide No.DHK/PROD/ 2016/5326-37 dated 28.06.2016 and subsequently file compliance report before this Hon’ble Court.

iii. A writ of mandamus be issued in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents commanding the respondents to re-tender the

auction of up-rooted plants/trees along with pruned wood available at Fruit Plant Nursery Zawoora District Srinagar.

2) According to the petitioners, they had submitted their bid in response to tender notice No.DHK/PROD/ 2016/5326-37 dated 28.06.2016, invited by

respondent No.3for auction of up-rooted plants/trees along with pruned wood available at Fruit Plant Nursery, Zawoora, District Srinagar. It was

provided in the tender notice that all quotations will be opened by the auction committee on 17.07.2016 at 11.00 AM at Horticulture Complex Rajbagh,

Srinagar, in presence of quotationers who wish to be present. It is the case of the petitioners that when the tenders were opened, though the

petitioners were interested to participate in the process, yet they were neither called nor were present at the relevant time.

3) The petitioners allege that when they reached the office of respondents at the appointed time, the bids were not opened but they were informed that

the tender will be cancelled but thereafter when the petitioners had left the place, the respondents opened the tenders in their absence and accepted

the bid of their blue eyed persons. In this regard, petitioners are stated to have made complaints to the Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir, as well as to

the Chief Minister.

4) The respondents have resisted the writ petition by filing reply thereto. In their reply, the respondents have vehemently denied the allegations made

by the petitioners in their petition. It has been contended by the respondents that the tender box was sealed in presence of petitioners after affixing of

signatures by the concerned auction committee members nominated by the Government. It has also been submitted that all the bidders were informed

to attend the process but excepting one, all others did not attend the process and instead tried to scuttle the same by attempting to pool the issue with

the intention to grab the dry wood at lowest possible rates. It is also alleged that the petitioners instead of participating in the process of opening of

tenders lodged a complaint about the theft of trees/wood and sought cancellation of tender. The allegations leveled in the said complaint were found to

be false and thereafter the process of opening of bids by the designated auction committee members was undertaken and the tender was awarded in

favour of the highest bidder. It has been further submitted that the issues raised in the complaint made by the petitioners before the Divisional

Commissioner, Kashmir, were enquired into by a Committee of officers and the allegations leveled against the officers in the said complaint were

found to be baseless.

5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

6) From the pleadings of the parties, it is clear that the petitioners were not present at the time of opening of bids but there are contrary versions of the

parties regarding the reasons for non-participation of the petitioners in the process. According to petitioners, they were told that tender would be

cancelled but according to respondents, the petitioners filed a baseless complaint alleging theft of wood and sought cancellation of the tender, which

prompted them to open the tenders in their absence. Thus, the stand taken by the parties has given rise to disputed questions of fact, which cannot be

gone into by this Court in writ proceedings. The petition is, therefore, dismissed leaving the petitioners at liberty to have recourse to appropriate

remedies that may be available to them under law, if so advised.