[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board vs M/S Anju Bala Sharma And Others on 16 February, 2026
Author: Rajnesh Oswal
Bench: Rajnesh Oswal
Sr. No. 12
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
CJ Court
Case No. :LPA No. 313/2025 in
[WP(C) No. 3389/2025]
CM No. 8502/2025
Date of Pronouncement : 16.02.2026
Uploaded on : 18.02.2026
Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board ....Appellant/Petitioner(s)
University and others
Through: Ms. Shivani Jalali, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Neeraj Verma, Advocate
Vs
M/s Anju Bala Sharma and others ..... Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Vikas Mangotra, Advocate for R-1 & 2
Mr. Anil Khajuria, Advocate for R-3
Coram: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE
ORDER
(ORAL)
1. Shri Mata Vaishno Devi University invited e-tenders on September 03,
2025, for allotment of an eatery-cum-sweet shop on a leave and
license basis for three years. Upon technical evaluation, five bidders
were found responsive. And their price bids were opened on October
17, 2025. Accordingly, M/s Anju Bala Sharma (respondent No.1) was
adjudged as the lowest tenderer (L-1) with a quote of ₹1420/-, while
M/s Bumble Bees Café (respondent No.3) was declared L-2 with a
quote of ₹2234/-. However, upon scrutiny, the finance wing of the
Authorities found respondent No.1's rates for certain articles (Gulab
Jamun, Rasgulla and Khoya Barfi) to be abysmally low at ₹50/Kg. As
a result, the University sought a rate analysis and per respondent No.1
itself, production costs (₹93 to ₹243 per Kg) were significantly higher
than the quoted rate i.e. ₹50/-. That being so and fearing a compromise
on food quality and safety, a five member Committee, on November
11, 2025, rejected the bid of respondent No.1. Resultantly, the
Contract was awarded to L-2 (M/s Bumble Bees Café) on November
24, 2025 and physical possession of the subject premises was also
handed over on November 28, 2025.
2. Learned Senior counsel for the appellants submits that, it was in this
background, respondent No.1 approached this Court vide WP (C) No.
3889/2025. It is urged that the bidder quoting rates below the cost of
raw material, poses a high risk of cutting corners on hygiene and
quality, justifying the rejection of an abnormally low bid. Further, the
contract between the appellant and respondent No.3 had already been
executed and, as indicated earlier, even the possession of the subject
premises was handed over to the L-2. Much before the Writ Court
intervened. She asserts that the tenders were invited and the very
purpose to assign the contract was to provide hygienic, high quality
and affordable food to the students and staff.
3. She submits that the limited grievance that the appellant-University
has is that vide impugned order dated December 01, 2025, the learned
Writ Court has restrained the appellant-University from acting upon
the formal allotment of the contract to respondent No.2. And, owing to
the order under challenge, the right/interest of the respondent-
Authorities is severely impaired. It is submitted that the matter was
listed on 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 12th, 24th& 28th December, 2025, but no effective
order was passed. Thus, this appeal.
4. At this stage, Mr.Vikas Mangotra, learned counsel for respondent
Nos.1 & 2 submits that the application moved by the writ petitioner for
amendment in the petition has since been allowed and the appellants
have already adopted the objections/response that was submitted to the
original petition. So much so, even reply to the application seeking
interim relief has also been submitted. Thus, he submits that the matter
before the Writ Court being ripe for arguments, it would rather be
expedient if the appeal at hands is disposed of with a direction to the
Writ Court to consider and decide the matter at the earliest to secure
the interest of all the stake holders.
5. Learned Sr. Counsel, as always, fairly agrees to the course suggested
by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
6. That being so, we are not required to delve any further into the matter.
Accordingly, in the wake of the position sketched out above and in
terms of the statements made by learned counsel for the parties, we
consider it expedient and dispose of the appeal with a request to the
learned Writ Court, in seisin of the matter, to consider and decide the
petition at the earliest. And, at any rate, the application for interim
stay, if feasible, be taken up and decided on the date already fixed.
7. Needless to assert that this order shall not constitute any expression of
opinion on merits of the case of either party, as the learned Writ Court
shall proceed to decide the matter strictly in accordance with law.
( ( (RAJNESH OSWAL) (ARUN PALLI)
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Jammu :
16.02.2026
Pawan Chopra/Secy
Pawan Chopra
2026.02.18 16:22
I attest to the LPA No. 313/2025
integrity of this document
