M/S YLDA INDIA PVT. LTD. TH. ITS DIRECTOR MOHIT MALHOTRA vs UT OF J AND K TH. COMMISSIONER SECRETARY, RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, JAMMU AND OTHERS

Court
Jammu and Kashmir High Court

Sr. No. 126
Suppl. 1 cause list



HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU


Uploaded on :26.05.2026
Case:- AA No. 4/2026



M/s YLDA India Pvt. Ltd.

….. Petitioner

Through: Mr. Mohd. Ashraf Malik, Advocate
(through Virtual Mode)

Vs


UT of J&K and others
.….Respondents
Through: Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG with
Ms. Nazia Fazal, Advocate.


Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE

JUDGMENT
15.05.2026

01. For the purpose of creating pilgrimage related civic
facilities en route to annual Shri Amarnath Ji Yatra, which is a
regulated and rationed religious-pilgrimage keeping in view the
security scenario of the UT of Jammu & Kashmir and
challenging geographical conditions at the site of Holy Cave, the
Government of UT of Jammu & Kashmir and also Shri
Amarnath Ji Shrine Board act at their respective and
collaborated optimum efforts and energy to make and provide
best possible arrangements by taking well in advance measures
one of which being arrangements for pilgrims (Yatris) for their
stopovers and stay at defined destinations known by given
names like Pahalgam Axis, Baltal Axis and others likewise.
AA No. 4/2026 Page 1 of 17

02. For Shri Amarnath Ji Yatra of last year 2025, the
petitioner had submitted its bid with respect to “Hiring,
Installation, and De-installation of Prefabricated 2215
toilets, 285 bathrooms along with safe on-site/off-site
Feacal management and 40 soak pits for grey water
disposal system and Cleaning, Operation & Maintenance of
same for Amarnath Yatra 2025 at different locations en
route to Shri Amarnath Shrine (Pahalgam Axis) in J&K” and
came to be successful bidder by proposing to provide services
at a cost of Rs.18,28,57,500.00 for Yatra period of 55 days .
03. By reference to its said last year’s contractual
engagement carried to full effect, the petitioner, reeling under a
self entertained and self serving impression that for this year’s
Shri Amarnath Ji Yatra-2026 it is entitled to seek as a matter
of right an extension of engagement, the petitioner is coming
forward with this petition invoking section 9 of the Arbitration
& Conciliation Act, 1996 thereby seeking an injunctory
direction/ order from this Court for preempting and restraining
the respondents from proceeding ahead with the tendering
process pursuant to E-NIT No. SPSA/RDD/SANJAY
PAHALGAM Toilets/2026/S-222 dated 24.04.2026, and
further restraining from finalizing, awarding, acting upon or
giving effect to any fresh tender/E-NIT/request for proposal
pertaining to sanitation services for Shri Amarnath Ji Yatra –
2026 for the Pahalgam Axis covered under E-NIT No.
SPSA/RDD/SANJAY PAHALGAM 2025/295 dated
AA No. 4/2026 Page 2 of 17

21.03.2025 pending adjudication of disputes through an
arbitration yet to be sought and also to stay the operation of
communication No. DRS/2026-27/724 dated 24.04.2026
issued by the respondent No. 2 - Director General, Rural
Sanitation, J&K.
04. The petitioner is also asking for restraint upon the
rd
respondents from creating 3 party rights in respect of the
subject contract during pendency of arbitral proceedings and
also seeking a direction unto the respondents to maintain
status-quo with respect to the subject matter of the contract
and the petitioner’s claim for extension under clause 8.5 of the
agreement.
05.
The entire expectation of the petitioner to come
forward and ask for the aforementioned directions in its favour
against the respondents emanates from the fact that the
petitioner was engaged with respect to Shri Amarnath Ji Yatra -
2025 as a contractor/agency for “Hiring, Installation, and De-
installation of Prefabricated 2215 toilets, 285 bathrooms
along with safe on-site/off-site fecal management and 40
soak pits for grey water disposal system and Cleaning,
Operation & Maintenance of same for Amarnath Yatra 2025
at different locations en route to Shri Amarnath Shrine
(Pahalgam Axis) in J&K” at a cost of Rs. 18,28,57,500.00
(Rs. Eighteen Crore Twenty-Eight Lacs Fifty-Seven
Thousand Five Hundred Only) inclusive of all taxes for 55
days.
AA No. 4/2026 Page 3 of 17

06. The last time engagement of the petitioner for the
aforesaid contractual assignment was in furtherance of E-NIT
No. SPSA/RDD/SANJAY PAHALGAM 2025/295 dated
21.03.2025 floated for aforementioned contract work.
07. In relation to E-NIT No. SPSA/RDD/SANJAY
PAHALGAM 2025/295 dated 21.03.2025 , Request for
Proposal (RFP) for said contract work was circulated with a
disclaimer that the RFP is containing brief information about
the scope of work and qualification process for the selection of
bidder and the purpose of RFP document is to provide bidders
with information to assist the formulation of their proposals
and further the same not to be counted as an agreement nor an
offer by the Director General, Rural Sanitation, J&K to the
prospective bidder or any other person. It came to be clearly
stipulated that the information provided in RFP, 2025 to the
bidder/s is on a wide range of matters some of which may
depend upon interpretation and not intended to be an
exhaustive account of statutory requirements and, thus, not to
be regarded as complete or authoritative statement of law.
08. Said RFP, 2025 comprised of Clauses 1 to 9 .
09. Clause 8 provided “Other Conditions” from sub-
clauses 1 to 5 .
10. Clause 8.5 is on “Extension of Contract” stating
therein that contract once finalized for SANJY-2025 may be
extended by one year for Shri Amarnath Ji Yatra-2026 based
AA No. 4/2026 Page 4 of 17

on the successful/satisfactory performance/completion of work
in the light of agreement between the parties during SANJY-
2025, subject to approval of the competent authority.

11. The petitioner was awarded 2025 contract subject to
the terms and conditions as expressly stipulated in the written
agreement dated 27.05.2025 executed between the
st
respondent No. 2 as party of 1 Part being the Employer and
nd
the petitioner as party of 2 Part as being the Contractor.
12. The aforesaid agreement bears an arbitration clause
by reference to which the petitioner is coming forward to lay a
claim for issuance of interim measures at pre-arbitration stage
by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under section 9 of the
Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.
13. The petitioner credits itself of having successfully
carried out the contractual obligation as exhibited by a
Completion Certificate dated 30.12.2025 issued by the
Accounts Officer of the Directorate of Rural Sanitation, J&K
acknowledging therein the nature and extent of work under the
contract carried out by the petitioner. The Completion
Certificate refers to the demonstration of an exemplary
expertise in waste management, and exhibition of
commendable source fullness, punctuality, dedication and
commitment through the execution and completion of the
entire assignment.
AA No. 4/2026 Page 5 of 17

14. It is only by reference to said clause 8.5 of RFP 2025,
but without any corresponding clause of like nature
incorporated in the written agreement dated 27.05.2025 , that
the petitioner reckons itself to be entitled to earn extension
and, thus, addressed its claim in writing in terms of its
communication/ representation dated 20.02.2026 therein
citing clause 8.5 .
15. The petitioner came to plead its case for extension in
view of the following highlights as set out in its said
communication/representation which are reproduced as
under:-
“In view of :
The explicit 1+1 extension provision under Clause 8.5
of the RFP;
Our certified satisfactory performance during SANJY-
2025:
The original financial structuring based on a two-year
scope;
Good faith negotiations undertaken at the
Department’s request;
Retention of infrastructure in Kashmir based on
tender assurance;
Financial prudence in retaining L1 rates; and
The large public interest in ensuring seamless
sanitation services;
we most humbly request that approval may kindly be
accorded for extension of the contract 2026 on the same
terms, conditions, and rates as envisaged in the RFP.”

16. The petitioner, by virtue of its communication/
representation dated 20.02.2026 addressed to the respondent
No. 2 – Director General, Rural Sanitation, J&K, submitted its
AA No. 4/2026 Page 6 of 17

case and claim for consideration with respect to extension of
the petitioner’s contractual engagement otherwise availed for
Shri Amarnath Ji Yatra-2025 for the coming year’s Shri
Amarnath Ji Yatra-2026 by reference to the intendment of
clause 8.5 of RPF.
17. In its said communication dated 20.02.2026 , the
petitioner self credited itself of having executed the entire
contract work efficiently and to the complete satisfaction of the
respondent No. 2 – Director General, Rural Sanitation, J&K
and earning commendation certificates to that effect.
18. The petitioner came to assert that while bidding for
contract for Shri Amarnath Ji Yatra-2025, the bid submitted by
it was structured by considering the explicit 1+1 year extension
provision as contained in clause 8.5 of RFP, 2025 and,
accordingly, the quoted price from the petitioner’s end was
based on anticipated two years’ scope and not on a single
season deployment.
19. The petitioner is meaning to say in its said
communication/representation that it negotiated and
rationalized its quoted rates at the request of the Directorate of
Rural Sanitation and, accordingly, finally accepted L-1 rates
were agreed to be in good faith and in larger public interest
with a legitimate expectation at the end of the petitioner that
the extension clause would be duly considered upon
satisfactory performance.
AA No. 4/2026 Page 7 of 17

20. The petitioner has asserted that relying upon said
assurance contained in tender document related to 1+1 year
extension provision, it retained substantial pre-fabricated
sanitary units, equipment and related infrastructure in
Kashmir instead of demobilizing it after completion of Shri
Amarnath Ji Yatra-2025 and for that purpose significant
financial commitment got involved from its end to ensure
readiness for Shri Amarnath Ji Yatra-2026 engagement.
21. The petitioner quoted sections 37 & 73 of the Indian
Contract Act, 1872 to assert its claim for extension of its
contractual engagement for Shri Amarnath Ji Yatra-2026.
22. It is by reference to said communication/
representation of the petitioner that the respondent No. 2 –
Director General Rural Sanitation, J&K by virtue of a
communication No. DRS/2026-27/724 dated 24.04.2026
came to apprise the petitioner that upon examination of its
request for extension by the Purchase Committee on
23.04.2026 , the same stands rejected.
23. The issuance of aforesaid communication No.
DRS/2026-27/724 dated 24.04.2026 from the end of the
Director General, Rural Sanitation, J&K coincided with an
issuance of E-NIT No. SPSA/RDD/SANJAY PAHALGAM
TOILETS/2026/S-222 dated 24.04.2026 thereby floating a
Request for Proposal (RFP), 2026 for the purpose of “Hiring,
installation, and de-installation of prefabricated 2730
AA No. 4/2026 Page 8 of 17

toilets, 315 bathrooms along with safe on-site/off-site
Faecal management and 40 soak pits for grey water
disposal system and Cleaning, Operation & Maintenance of
same for Amarnath Yatra 2026 at different locations
enroute to Shri Amarnath Shrine (Pahalgam Axis) in J&K.”
24. The petitioner came to reckon the issuance of the
aforesaid Request for Proposal (RFP), 2026 by the respondent
No. 2 – Director General, Rural Sanitation, J&K as negation of
its right to earn, as a matter of right, an extension in its favour
for 2026 Yatra as well.
25. It is in response to said representation dated
20.02.2026 of the petitioner, the respondent No. 2 – Director
General, Rural Sanitation, J&K came up with a reply in terms
of communication No. DRS/2026-27/724 dated 24.04.2026
thereby notifying the petitioner that its representation
requesting for grant of one year extension for Shri Amarnath Ji
Yatra-2026 upon examination by the Purchase Committee on
23.04.2026 stands rejected.
26. The petitioner then hurried up with its written
objection dated 25.04.2026 addressed to the respondent No. 2
– Director General, Rural Sanitation, J&K thereby taking an
exception to the fact that the petitioner’s plea for extension of
its contractual assignment for coming Shri Amarnath Ji Yatra-
2026 has come to be rejected.
AA No. 4/2026 Page 9 of 17

27. The petitioner further supplemented its objection and
sent through e-mail a legal notice dated 25.04.2026 by M/s
Malhotra & Malhotra Law Firm referring it as a notice under
section 21 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 thereby
invoking clause 9(i)(ii) of the contract arising out of RFP dated
21.03.2025 .

28. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the petitioner came
up with the present petition asking for the measures as this
Court had already set out hereinbefore.
29.
Mr. Mohd. Ashraf Malik, Advocate borrowing from the
aforesaid facts and circumstances argues that the respondent
No. 2- Director General, Rural Sanitation, J&K cannot escape
from its obligation of doling out extension in favour of the
petitioner for its contractual engagement for Shri Amarnath Ji
Yatra-2026 on the strength of satisfactory performance of the
petitioner with respect to its contractual engagement for Shri
Amarnath Ji Yatra-2025 and in this regard clause 8.5 of RFP is
being heavily relied upon to show as if it is a binding
contractual commitment from the end of the Department of
Rural Development & Panchayati Raj, Govt. of UT of Jammu &
Kashmir.
30. On the other hand, Mrs. Monika Kohli, learned Sr.
AAG argues that the petitioner is coming under a very serious
misconception of Request for Proposal (RFP) and the final
written agreement/contract which came to be executed
AA No. 4/2026 Page 10 of 17

between the Department of Rural Sanitation & Panchayati Raj,
Govt. of Jammu & Kashmir and the petitioner.
31. Mrs. Monika Kohli, learned Sr. AAG submits that the
petitioner is meaning to argue as if all the terms and conditions
set out in the RFP are incorporated in the written agreement/
contract made with the petitioner and, therefore, clause 8.5 is
contractually available for the petitioner to quote and exploit as
a matter of right in asking for extended engagement of the
petitioner for Shri Amarnath Ji Yatra-2026.
32.
Considering all pleaded and submitted, this Court
holds that there is no doubt to the fact that the petitioner’s
edifice with respect to its claim in the petition is built upon
clause 8.5 of the RFP, 2025. The petitioner has not adverted
and could not have adverted to any clause, be it an express one
or implied, set out in the written contract/agreement dated
27.05.2025 to assert that its claim for seeking consideration
for extension of contractual engagement for the forthcoming
Shri Amarnath Ji Yatra-2026 is actually being drawn
therefrom.
33. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that it is
clause 8.5 of RFP, 2025 which is to be read and understood
very realistically by this Court for the purpose of considering
the petitioner’s petition for interim measures prayed for in the
petition.
AA No. 4/2026 Page 11 of 17

34. Clause 8.5 is not obtaining in isolation. It is one of the
clauses of RFP, 2025 and, therefore, RFP, 2025 in its entirety is
to be examined as to whether it can be and/or meant to be
imported and transplanted into written agreement dated
27.05.2025 which came to be made by the petitioner with the
Department of Rural Sanitation & Panchayati Raj, Govt. of
Jammu & Kashmir.
35. What has been missed out by the learned counsel for
the petitioner, or for that matter the petitioner itself, is the very
opening of RFP as a document and that opening is with a word
“disclaimer.”
36. In unequivocal sense and meaning, RFP, 2025,
through its disclaimer opening, is meaning to apprise the
prospective bidder/s that none of the terms and conditions or
clauses, as one may put it, of RFP, 2025 are to be counted as
readymade and customized contractual terms and conditions
upon selection of a bidder for award of contract in its favour.
37. The petitioner was fully cognizant of all the clauses of
RFP, 2025 before lending its seal and signature to the written
agreement dated 27.05.2025 with Department of Rural
Sanitation & Panchayati Raj, Govt. of Jammu & Kashmir.
38. The petitioner has come up with the present petition
with a serious misconception that the terms and conditions of
RFP, 2025 by reference to which E-NIT No.
SPSA/RDD/SANJAY PAHALGAM 2025/295 dated
AA No. 4/2026 Page 12 of 17

21.03.2025 was floated and in which the petitioner came to be
the highest bidder and allottee of contract work for 2025 Yatra,
are importable in the written agreement dated 27.05.2025
made between it and the Department of Rural Development &
Panchayati Raj, Govt. of UT of Jammu & Kashmir.
39. A comparative perusal of RFP, 2025 and the written
agreement dated 27.05.2025 would show that there is an
arbitration clause provided in both.
40. The arbitration clause in RFP, 2025 is sub-section (i)
of section 9 whereas the arbitration clause in the written
agreement dated 27.05.2025 is sub-clause (ii) of clause 5 .
41. Now, when the arbitration clause of RFP, 2025 and
27.05.2025
arbitration clause of written agreement dated are
individually existing, then on the same principle clause 8.5 of
RFP, 2025 with respect to extension of contract ought to have
also been correspondingly cited and/or repeated in the written
agreement dated 27.05.2025 so as to carry its enforceability to
be resorted to and exploited by the petitioner as is intended to
be through the medium of the present petition.
42. However, there is no such inkling of intendment of
clause 8.5 made to be shared in written agreement dated
27.05.2025 and that meant that it was a conscious exclusion
agreed upon between the contracting parties.
AA No. 4/2026 Page 13 of 17

43. Therefore, the contractual relationship between the
petitioner and the Department of Rural Development &
Panchayati Raj, Govt. of UT of Jammu & Kashmir as governed
by the agreement dated 27.05.2025 bears an arbitration
clause for settlement of disputes and differences through
arbitration by its own reference notwithstanding identical
arbitration clause stated in RFP, 2025 but then there is no
such clause/condition in the written agreement dated
27.05.2025 with respect to scope for extension of contract for
the next year Shri Amarnath Ji Yatra-2026 on the lines as
meant in clause 8.5 of RFP, 2025. As such, no relief by
reference to section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act,
1996 can be admitted to the petitioner by any stretch of
imagination and interpretation for the reason extension or non-
extension as a condition or clause is not at all figuring in the
written agreement and, thus, there cannot be any arbitral state
of dispute on said front.
44. Otherwise also, the petitioner’s misconception is so
profound that the disclaimer in the RFP, 2025 has been missed
out by the petitioner which is that the clause 8.5 is not to
count as a binding contract clause between the petitioner and
the respondents. Even if one were to assume for the sake of
arguments that the petitioner had at its disposal said clause
8.5, even then the same would not have been available to the
petitioner to be exploited at the very opening time of exercise
for arrangement of Shri Amarnath Ji Yatra-2026.
AA No. 4/2026 Page 14 of 17

45. RFP, 2025 carries a definition clause 2 (xvi) in which
RFP means a document that solicits a proposal made through
bidding process, by an agency or authority interested in
procurement of a commodity, service or valuable set.
“Contract” or “Agreement” words have been defined in clause
2 (iv) means contract signed the parties and all the attached
documents, if any.
46. Thus, even by the definition reference, it ought to have
been in clear conception of the petitioner that RFP, 2025 by
itself was not to count as a contractually relating document
between it and the respondents and further even by signing of
a written contract/agreement by the petitioner and the
respondent No. 2, RFP, 2025, be in its entirety or its part, was
not to become a part of the written contract/agreement dated
27.05.2025 , without any express recital in said written
contract/agreement to the effect that all the terms and
conditions, be in its entirety or in part, of RFP, 2025 to be read
as part and parcel of said written contract/agreement which
eventually came to be executed between the petitioner and the
respondents on 27.05.2025 .
47. The petitioner could have been heard to have a
grievance that too not by reference to arbitration but otherwise,
if the petitioner, immediately upon the conclusion of Shri
Amarnath Ji Yatra-2025 for which it had contractually lend its
services for setting up of the infrastructure, would have acted
by registration of its immediate request for the consumption
AA No. 4/2026 Page 15 of 17

and consideration of the respondents about its intention to
seek extension for the next year’s Shri Amarnath Ji Yatra –
2026 so as to serve as a timely lodged reminder and request for
the respondents to ponder upon and consider on its
administrative side as to whether for the Pahalgam Axis, the
petitioner ought to be retained or the fresh contract allotment
exercise was needed to be carried out.
48. The fact that the respondents came up with a fresh
exercise for Shri Amarnath Ji Yatra-2026 in itself amounts to a
decision that the respondents did not want a repeat of the
petitioner’s engagement on the basis of its last year 2025
engagement but of course leaving it open for the petitioner to
bid for the forthcoming Shri Amarnath Ji Yatra-2026.
49. The petitioner is infatuated that the respondents owed
to it a duty of giving reasons for not considering the petitioner’s
request for extension and, therefore, insisted for the same
notwithstanding the fact that by virtue of communication dated
24.04.2026 the petitioner came to be informed by the Director
General, Rural Sanitation, J&K that the petitioner’s request
has been examined to be rejected.
50. This Court is drawing a reference for the proposition
that the RFP, 2025 per-se by its own reference does not
constitute to be a contract or agreement so as to render the
terms and conditions enforceable, from the judgments of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of “National
AA No. 4/2026 Page 16 of 17

Highways and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd.
Vs BSCPL Infrastructure Ltd.” (2019)15 SCC 25 and “PSA
Mumbai Investments Pte. Ltd Vs the Board of Trustees of
the Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust and another,” (2018) 10
SCC 525 .
51. The last ditch effort on the part of the counsel for the
petitioner to salvage the case of the petitioner is reference to
WP(C) No. 1088/2026 titled “M/s Quickman Security Services
Private Limited Vs UT of J&K and others” disposed of by virtue
of an order dated 13.05.2026 which involved the contractor for
Shri Amarnath Ji Yatra – 2025 for Baltal Axis. The first thing
which differentiates case of the petitioner with the aforesaid
case is that aforesaid case was a writ petition filed under article
226 of the Constitution of India whereas the present case is a
petition under section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act,
1996 and that is a good enough reason for this Court not to
rely upon the outcome of the writ petition WP(C) No.
1088/2026.
52. In the light of the aforesaid, the present petition is
dismissed .
53. Record is to be returned back.
(RAHUL BHARTI)
JUDGE
JAMMU
15.05.2026
Muneesh

Whether the judgment is speaking : Yes

Whether the judgment is reportable : Yes
Muneesh Sharma
2026.05.26 16:01
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
AA No. 4/2026 Page 17 of 17