SRINAGAR: The Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has quashed the Jammu Municipal Corporation’s 2013 allotment of a toilet complex construction contract to a private organisation without inviting tenders, directing the civic body to initiate the allotment process afresh through open competition.
Allowing a writ petition filed by Aryabhatt Seva Sansthan, the court held that awarding public works through direct allotment without following a transparent and competitive procedure amounted to an arbitrary exercise of power and violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Justice MA Chowdhary, while delivering the judgment on November 4, said the municipal corporation had failed to establish any exceptional circumstances or compelling reasons to justify bypassing the normal procedure of inviting public tenders.
The court set aside Allotment Order No. MJ/13/Tech/T/03-07 dated April 8, 2013, issued by the Jammu Municipal Corporation’s Executive Engineer in favour of M/S Lakshya Social Service Organization for constructing a toilet complex in Sector 3, Ward 50, Channi Himmat, Jammu.
It directed the official respondents to undertake the allotment process afresh in accordance with law by inviting tenders and ensuring open competition.
The petition was filed by Aryabhatt Seva Sansthan, through its chairman Mukesh Kumar Jha, challenging the allotment on the ground that the municipal corporation had awarded the work to the private organisation without inviting tenders or following the prescribed procedure.The petitioner sought quashing of the allotment order and a direction to the authorities to award the contract to the lowest tenderer after inviting bids in accordance with law.
Opposing the petition, the Jammu Municipal Corporation and other official respondents argued that the civic body had undertaken the construction and maintenance of toilet complexes to improve sanitation facilities in the city.
They submitted that earlier attempts to invite tenders had not been successful and that the work had previously been undertaken through Sulabh International Social Service Organisation.
The authorities further stated that M/S Lakshya Social Service Organization had approached them through the Housing and Urban Development Department and that the work was allotted to it to encourage another non-governmental organisation working in the sanitation sector.
The corporation maintained that the organisation was empanelled with the Housing and Urban Development Department and had around 20 years of experience in sanitation-related activities across the country. It also argued that the contract had been awarded after verifying the organisation’s credentials and without any ulterior motive or mala fide intention.
The official respondents also contended that the petitioner had neither approached the municipal corporation for the work nor maintained an office in Jammu.
However, the High Court rejected these justifications, observing that the experience or empanelment of the private organisation could not, by itself, justify dispensing with the established procedure for awarding public contracts.
“The fact that private respondent No. 6 may have experience or expertise in the relevant field does not confer upon it any exclusive entitlement to secure a public contract,” the court observed.
It further noted that the authorities had neither disclosed any compelling or exceptional circumstances warranting departure from the normal tendering procedure nor demonstrated the existence of any statutory provision permitting direct allotment.
Rejecting the argument that the petitioner had not previously approached the municipal corporation, the court held that an organisation could not be denied the right to challenge an arbitrary exercise of public power merely because it had not made a prior representation to the authorities.
“The petitioner cannot be deprived of the right to challenge an arbitrary exercise of public power merely on the ground that it had not made any prior representation to the authorities,” the judgment stated.
The court also relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Nagar Nigam, Meerut v. Al Faheem Meat Exports Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., (2006) 13 SCC 382, which laid down that public authorities cannot distribute public resources or award contracts at their discretion without adhering to fairness and transparency.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s observations, Justice Chowdhary reiterated that government contracts should ordinarily be awarded through public auction or by inviting tenders after adequate publicity to ensure equal opportunities for eligible participants.
The judgment noted that open tendering promotes transparency in public procurement, improves economy and efficiency, encourages healthy competition and ensures fair and equal treatment of bidders.
Holding that the direct allotment of the Channi Himmat toilet complex contract lacked transparency and violated the constitutional requirement of non-arbitrariness, the High Court allowed the petition and quashed the 2013 order.
The petitioner was represented by advocate Veenu Gupta, while advocate Harshwardhan Gupta appeared for the State and the Jammu Municipal Corporation authorities. M/S Lakshya Social Service Organization, arrayed as respondent No. 6, did not appear despite service of notice and was proceeded against ex parte.
The judgment was reserved on November 2, 2026, and pronounced on November 4, 2026. The court disposed of the petition along with connected applications, with no order as to costs.
