HC dismisses Army contractor’s appeal over defence tender

Says interim order allowing tender process to continue was not appealable judgment

19/09/2026

JAMMU, Sep 18: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed an intra-court appeal filed by M/s Jai Sukrala Trading Co. against an interim order allowing the Army authorities to proceed with and finalise a defence tender, holding that the order did not amount to a "judgment" under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Sindhu Sharma and Justice Shahzad Azeem dismissed LPA No. 167/2026, filed against the August 13, 2026 order passed by the Single Judge in WP(C) No. 2388/2026.
The appellant, a proprietorship concern engaged in supplying fencing, electrification, solar and allied structural works to Army units under 25 Infantry Division/16 Corps, had challenged its technical rejection from nine tenders floated by the 59 Engineer Regiment.
The tenders concerned the "Realignment of IAIOS/AOIS" at multiple stretches in the Naushera-Jhangar sector and connected works. The appellant had alleged, among other things, irregularities in the technical evaluation and challenged a corrigendum that required physical submission of a Solar Cube Generator-cum-Invertor sample at the Technical Evaluation Committee stage.
The appellant was declared technically rejected in all nine tenders on July 29, 2026, citing non-submission of BIS/ISO certificates, non-submission of the sample within time, non-conformity of the sample and failure to establish that the offered product did not infringe a patent.
The Division Bench noted that the writ petition remained pending and that the Single Judge had neither upheld nor quashed the technical rejection or corrigendum. Issues concerning alleged arbitrariness, absence of the Technical Evaluation Committee, tailored specifications and discrimination had also been left open for determination in the main petition.
The Bench held that modification of an interim restraint was an ordinary incident of interlocutory jurisdiction and did not, by itself, constitute a "judgment" appealable under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. It observed that the tender had been allowed to proceed while its finalisation remained subject to the outcome of the writ petition and the successful bidder was expressly restrained from claiming equity.
The court further observed that judicial review of tenders concerns the decision-making process rather than a re-evaluation of technical choices. It held that courts do not sit in appeal over a Technical Evaluation Committee and that technical evaluation and comparison by the court is impermissible.
The Bench also took note of the operational nature of the defence works, observing that the procurement related to realignment on the Line of Control in the Naushera-Jhangar sector pursuant to directions concerning operational readiness after "OP Sindoor". It held that the private commercial interest of a bidder must yield to public interest in such circumstances.
Concluding that the August 13 order was a discretionary modification of an interim direction in a pending writ petition and not a "judgment" within the meaning of Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, the Bench held that the appeal was not maintainable and dismissed it.
The court clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of the writ petition and that all contentions of the parties remained open.
Senior Advocate Vikram Sharma with Advocate Sachin Dev Singh appeared for the appellant, while DSGI Vishal Sharma, CGSC Karan Sharma and Capt. VarunBajiya, OIC Legal Cell, HQ 16 Corps, represented the respondents.

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty