Unicorn Denmart LTD vs. State Of Jammu And Kashmir And Ors ( Medical Education )

Held

The Court held that the writ petition lacked merit and was liable to be dismissed. The Court's reasoning, though not explicitly detailed in the provided text for the primary writ petition (OWP No. 786/2018), is indicated by the concluding paragraphs stating the petition is "without merit" and should be dismissed. The Court also addressed a connected contempt petition (CCP(S) No. 228/2019) related to the non-payment of dues to a petitioner. Since the main writ petition was dismissed, the contempt petition was settled with a direction to the respondents to implement a previous court order (dated March 26, 2019, in OWP No. 2257/2018) regarding the determination and release of payment to the petitioner. The Court noted that if the petitioner remained unsatisfied after the implementation, they were at liberty to approach the court again. No specific issue regarding GST provisions was discussed or decided in the provided text.

Facts

The petitioner, Unicorn DentMart Ltd., is aggrieved by the cancellation of a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) for the procurement of dental machinery and equipment, initially uploaded on April 27, 2016. The petitioner had submitted technical and financial bids for this tender. The J&K Medical Supplies Corporation Limited (respondent Corporation) declared the petitioner a qualified bidder for technical bids. However, the financial bids were not opened, and the bid process was cancelled on February 26, 2017. Subsequently, a supply order was placed in favour of respondent No. 4. The petitioner challenged this cancellation and the subsequent supply order, alleging arbitrariness, illegality, and malafides, and sought to prevent the acceptance of supply and payment to respondent No. 4. A previous writ petition (OWP No. 536/2018) was withdrawn after the respondent Corporation disclosed the cancellation of the bid process.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of the tender process and the subsequent placement of supply orders with respondent No. 4 were arbitrary, illegal, malafide, and contrary to settled principles of law, violating Article 14 of the Constitution? The petitioner argued that the cancellation was for extraneous considerations to favour respondent No. 4, especially since the petitioner's rates were lower and respondent No. 4 had been blacklisted in other states. They contended that the respondents' stated reasons for cancellation, such as expiry of validity and change in tax regime, were pretexts. The petitioner also argued that the respondents manipulated records and proceeded clandestinely. The respondents did not present arguments on this issue as recorded in the judgment.