ARYABHATT SEVA SANSTHAN TH ITS CHAIRMAN MUKESH KUMAR JHA vs STATE TH.U.D.D.AND ORS.

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU

OWP No. 1742/2013

Reserved on: 02.11.2026
Pronounced on: 04.11.2026

Uploaded on: 04.11.2026
Operative part or full judgment - Full



Aryabhatt Seva Sansthan,
Through its Chairman
Mr. Mukesh Kumar Jha
Road No. 9, Rajiv Nagar,
Patna 800024






….Petitioner(s)

Through: Ms. Veenu Gupta, Advocate.

Vs


1. State of Jammu and Kashmir
Through Principal Secretary,
Housing and Urban Development
Department, Civil Secretariat, Jammu.

2. Jammu Municipal Corporation
Town Hall, Jammu
Through its Commissioner.

3. Joint Commissioner (W)
Jammu Municipal Corporation,
Town Hall, Jammu.

4. Executive Engineer,
Jammu Municipal Corporation
Division Trikuta, Trikuta Complex,
Dogra Hall, Jammu.

5. Chief Accounts Officer,
Jammu Municipal Corporation, Jammu.

6. M/S Lakshya
Social Service Organization,
167/7 Nanak Nagar, Jammu.

2 OWP No. 1742/2013
.…. Respondent(s)

Mr. Harshwardhan Gupta, Advocate
Through:
for R-1 to 5.
Respondent no. 6 Ex-parte.


CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M A CHOWDHARY, JUDGE

ORDER
(02.11.2026)


01. The petitioner, through the medium of this petition, seeks
direction in the nature of writ of certiorari, quashing
Allotment Order No. MJ/13/Tech/T/03-07 dated
08.04.2013 issued by respondent No. 4, whereby
construction of toilet complex in Sector No. 3, Ward No.
50, Channi Himmat Jammu was allotted in favour of the
private respondent No. 6, allegedly without inviting any
tenders or without following any procedure, in sheer
contravention and violation to the provisions of law. The
petitioner seeks further direction in the nature of
mandamus, directing the official respondents, to allot the
contract for construction of aforesaid toilet complex to
the lowest tenderer, after inviting tenders, strictly in
consonance with the provisions of law.
02. The petitioner has assailed the allotment of the work of
the construction of toilet complex allotted in favour of the
private respondent No. 6, without inviting tenders. The
main grievance of the petitioner is that the official

3 OWP No. 1742/2013
respondents have not adopted the legal recourse
available to them, as the respondent-Municipal
Corporation Jammu was under an obligation to invite
tenders for construction of the toilet complex, instead of
allotting the same to the private respondent No. 6 at its
own whim.
03. Pursuant to notice, the respondents No. 2 to 5 have filed
their objections stating therein that in order to improve
the sanitation condition, Jammu Municipal Corporation
is constructing toilet complexes and maintenance
thereto; that earlier attempts for tendering were not
successful and the construction and maintenance of
toilet complexes was being done by NGO M/S Sulabh
International Social Service Organization; that when
private respondent No. 6 approached the answering
respondent through respondent No. 1 and in order to
encourage another NGO, the work of toilet complexes was
allotted to respondent No. 6, who is also NGO empanelled
with Housing and Urban Development Department; that
petitioner never approached the answering respondents
and they had come to know about the same through this
writ petition only; that allotment of contract in favour of
the private respondent No. 6 is not allotted with ulterior
motive and malafide consideration.

4 OWP No. 1742/2013
04. It was further contended that the petitioner never
approached the Jammu Municipal Corporation for
allotment of work as they are neither working in Jammu
or they have any office in Jammu; that the allotment of
work of toilet complexes had been granted to the private
respondent No. 6 on the terms and conditions as usually
applicable to Sulabh International Organization, who had
been working with the respondent-Jammu Municipal
Corporation, for the last two decades; that the private
respondent No. 6 has been working in the field of
sanitation throughout the country and has about 20
years of experience to its credit; that the contract was
granted after verifying the credentials of the organization
by JMC, hence, there is no violation of Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. Finally, it has been prayed that the
petition be dismissed with costs.
05. Despite issuance of notice, the respondent No. 6 has not
caused its appearance. The said respondent No. 6 is,
thus, set ex parte.
06. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
07. The controversy raised in the present petition essentially
revolves around the legality and validity of the allotment
of a public work by a public authority without inviting

5 OWP No. 1742/2013
tenders and adhering to any transparent and fair
procedure. The Jammu Municipal Corporation, being a
statutory body and an instrumentality of the State, is
under a constitutional obligation to act fairly, reasonably
and transparently in all matters involving distribution of
public largesse and award of public contracts. Such
exercise of power cannot be left to the unfettered
discretion of the authorities concerned, nor can the same
be exercised, in a manner, which is arbitrary,
discriminatory or contrary to the mandate of Article 14 of
the Constitution of India.
08. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Nagar Nigam, Meerut v.
Al Faheem Meat Exports Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. , (2006) 13
SCC 382 , while considering the legality of grant of a
public contract, has held that a State or its
instrumentalities, cannot distribute their largesse at their
own sweet will. The Court observed that statutory
functions cannot be permitted to be exercised at the
whims and caprices of the officers of the Government or
local bodies in an arbitrary manner. It was further held
that ordinarily, public contracts are required to be
awarded through public auction or by inviting tenders
after adequate publicity, so as to afford an equal
opportunity to all eligible persons to participate in the

6 OWP No. 1742/2013
process. The relevant observations made by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court are extracted as under:
“It is now a well settled principle of law that having
regard to the provisions of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India, a State within the meaning of
Article 12 thereof cannot distribute its largesse at its
own sweet will.”
“The Court can ensure that the statutory functions are
not carried out at the whims and caprices of the officers
of the government/local body in an arbitrary manner.
But the Court cannot itself take over these functions.”
“It is well settled that ordinarily the State or its
instrumentalities should not give contracts by private
negotiation but by open public auction/tender after
wide publicity.”
“The award of Government contracts through public-
auction/public tender is to ensure transparency in the
public procurement, to maximise economy and
efficiency in Government procurement, to promote
healthy competition among the tenderers, to provide
for fair and equitable treatment of all tenderers, and to
eliminate irregularities, interference and corrupt
practices by the authorities concerned. This is required
by Article 14 of the Constitution.”
“The law is, thus, clear that ordinarily all contracts by
the Government or by an instrumentality of the State
should be granted only by public auction or by inviting
tenders, after advertising the same in well known
newspapers having wide circulation, so that all eligible
persons will have opportunity to bid in the bid, and
there is total transparency.”

09. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the
present case, it is evident that the construction of the
toilet complex at Sector No. 3, Ward No. 50, Channi
Himmat, Jammu, constitutes a public work involving the
expenditure of public funds and, therefore, its allotment
was required to be undertaken in a fair, transparent and

7 OWP No. 1742/2013
competitive manner. The official respondents, being
public authorities, were under an obligation to afford an
equal opportunity to all eligible and interested persons to
participate in the process of allotment. The direct
allotment of the aforesaid work in favour of the private
respondent No. 6, without inviting tenders or providing
any opportunity to other eligible persons to compete,
prima facie, runs contrary to the constitutional mandate
of fairness and non-arbitrariness enshrined under Article
14 of the Constitution of India.
10. The justification furnished by the official respondents No.
2 to 5 that private respondent No. 6 is an NGO
empanelled with the Housing and Urban Development
Department and possesses considerable experience in the
field of sanitation, by itself, cannot constitute a valid
ground for dispensing with the normal procedure of
inviting tenders. 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, nor does such circumstance
exempt the Municipal Corporation from complying with
the requirements of transparency, fairness and equal
opportunity. The official respondents have neither
disclosed any compelling or exceptional circumstances

8 OWP No. 1742/2013
warranting departure from the ordinary procedure of
public tenders, nor have they demonstrated the existence
of any statutory provision authorizing such direct
allotment, so as to deviate from the settled legal position.

11. The plea of the official respondents that the petitioner
had never approached the Jammu Municipal Corporation
for allotment of the work or that the petitioner does not
have an office in Jammu is also of no consequence in
determining the legality of the impugned allotment. 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, particularly when the grievance raised is that
the official respondents have failed to adopt a transparent
and competitive procedure for awarding a public
contract.
12. It is, thus, manifest that the impugned allotment order
No. MJ/13/Tech/T/03-07 dated 08.04.2013 has been
issued without inviting tenders and without adhering to
any transparent or competitive procedure. The
respondents have failed to establish any exceptional
circumstance or compelling reason which could justify
departure from the normal rule of public tender. The
action of the official respondents, therefore, suffers from

9 OWP No. 1742/2013
arbitrariness and is violative of the constitutional
mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The
impugned allotment, being the outcome of an arbitrary
and non-transparent exercise of public power, cannot be
sustained in law and is liable to be quashed.
13. For the foregoing reasons, the present writ petition is
allowed. The allotment order No. MJ/13/Tech/T/03-07
dated 08.04.2013, issued by the official respondent No. 4
in favour of the private respondent No. 6 for construction
of toilet complex at Sector No. 3, Ward No. 50, Channi
Himmat, Jammu, is hereby quashed. The respondents
are directed to undertake the process of allotment of the
aforesaid work afresh, in accordance with law by inviting
tenders, to open competition.
14. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of, as allowed
along with connected application(s).
15. No order as to costs.
16.

(M A CHOWDHARY)
JUDGE
JAMMU
02.11.2026
NARESH/SECY



Whether the order is speaking: Yes
Whether the order is reportable: Yes
…
Naresh Kumar
2026.11.04 16:21
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document