HC directs JMC to examine tender complaints before finalising contract

High Court asks authorities to scrutinise complaint over rival bidder’s compliance with tender conditions

12/08/2026

JAMMU, Aug 11: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has directed the concerned authorities to take note of a complaint alleging non-compliance with tender conditions before finalising a contract in a dispute involving M/s J and K Clean House through Jeet Kumar.
Justice Rajnesh Oswal, while hearing WP(C) No. 2495/2026, observed that a prima facie case for judicial intervention was made out and issued notice to the respondents. The Court directed that the matter be listed on September 18, 2026.
The petition was filed by M/s J and K Clean House through its proprietor Jeet Kumar, represented through A.K. Sawhney Advocate and argued by Senior Advocate Aseem Sawhney, assisted by Advocates Harsh Singh, Anil Kumar and Mohd. Imran. The Union Territory of J&K was represented by AAG Ravinder Gupta.
The petitioner challenged the proposed consideration of the bid of a private respondent in the tender process, raising questions regarding compliance with Clauses 9 and 10 of the tender conditions.
According to the submissions recorded by the Court, Clause 9 required every bidder to furnish an affidavit regarding any current litigation, debarring, blacklisting, expulsion or abandonment of work by the bidder, if any.
Clause 10 provided that where litigation was pending, the decision was to be taken in accordance with the outcome of the court proceedings when received by the Jammu Municipal Corporation (JMC) in relation to the successful bidder.
Senior Advocate Aseem Sawhney submitted that various litigations had been initiated against private respondent No. 4 and that the respondent had, according to the petitioner's submissions, faced blacklisting/debarment and termination of a contract.
The petitioner further submitted that the alleged disabilities of the private respondent under Clauses 9 and 10 had already been brought to the notice of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 through complaints submitted on August 1 and August 3, 2026.
It was argued before the Court that despite the private respondent being declared L1, its bid could not be considered without examining the pending litigation and the alleged non-compliance with the tender conditions.
After considering the submissions, Justice Oswal recorded that a prima facie case for indulgence was made out and directed issuance of notice to the respondents.
AAG Ravinder Gupta waived notice on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 to 3 and sought time to file a response, which was granted by the Court.
The Court directed that notice would now go only to private respondent No. 4, subject to the petitioner taking necessary steps within one week.
Importantly, the Court did not itself decide the eligibility of the private respondent or finally determine the allegations raised by the petitioner at this stage.
Instead, it directed respondents Nos. 2 and 3 to take note of the complaint regarding alleged non-compliance with Clauses 9 and 10 before finalising the contract.
The Court specifically ordered that respondents Nos. 2 and 3 shall finalise the contract only thereafter.
The Court further directed that a copy of the order disposing of the complaint against the private respondent be provided to the petitioner.
The matter has been listed for September 18, 2026.

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty