To

Commissioner Secretary to Govt

CAPD , Civil Secretariat
Jammu/Srinagar.

Subject – Representation seeking exclusion of district Rajauri, Ramban,Kishtwar

and Doda from the purview of ENIT No. JKRTC/GML/CHT/J/517

dated 06-06-2023 floated by JKRTC.

Reference- ______________________________________

Sir,

With due respect the applicant most humbly submits as under –

1. That the applicant is engaged being a transport company in

transportation of food grains with FCI as well as with Deptt. Of Food

Civil Supply and Consumer Affairs (FCS&CA) and at present is

actively engaged in the said business having a license of transport

company duly issued by state transport authority in terms of the

 provisions contained under MV Act and rules framed thereunder.

2. That the applicant came across ENIT No. JKRTC/GML/CHT/j/517

dated 06-06-2023 regarding inviting bids for transportation of food

grains in various districts of Jammu province. After going through the

contents of the ENIT, my client thought it proper to invite your

attention through this representation to the various discrepancies and

shortcomings noticed in the ENIT.

3. That as far as distt Doda is concerned the empowered committee

invited the tenders and the applicant has technically qualified.

However the financial bid has not been opened which is to be

opened for allotment of the contract where the applicant has

legitimate expectation to get the contact allotted in his favour. So

far as distt Rajauri is concerned, applicant was the only qualified

tenderer for allotment of the contract which was not allotted

treating him as single bidder. Whereas there is no prohibition for

allotment of contract in favor of single bidder provided the

 tenderer has been floated and the procedure was followed.

4. That against the illegal action, the applicant filed WP(C) No.

2623/2022 titled Masood Ahmed V/s UT of J&K and Ors in which

the honble court has been pleased to pass the following order-

“ Subject to objections from other side and till the next

date of hearing before the Bench, it is ordered that the
respondents are restrained from re-advertising the work
pertaining to supply of vehicles for the delivery of food-
grains/ sugar to the doorsteps of fair price shops/ sales
depot in Rajouri.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
identical petition is pending and seeks clubbing of both
these petitions.
Registry to club this petition with WP(C) No. 1573/2022.
Ms. Monika Kohli, learned Sr. AAG has waived notice on
behalf of respondent No. 2 and Mr. Adarsh Bhagat, learned
GA has waived notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 3
and 6.
Let the objections be filed by respondents within four

weeks.” Copy enclosed.

Thus no contract can be allotted for distt Rajouri in view of the

order passed by the honble High court. Any action taken would be
 contrary to the direction of the High Court and in contempt of the
High Court.
5. That in distt Ramban and Kishtwar applicant has been allotted the

contract and agreement has been executed and in terms of the

agreement, contact is being successfully performed by the

applicant. Any attempt to initiate tender for these two districts as

well would generate serous litigation on the subject.

6. That the contents of section 5 of the Indian Contract Act 1872 are

as under-

“5. Revocation of Proposals and acceptance.—A proposal may

be revoked at any time before the communication of its

acceptance is complete as against the proposer, but not

afterwards. —A proposal may be revoked at any time before

the communication of its acceptance is complete as against the

proposer, but not afterwards." An acceptance may be revoked

at any time before the communication of the acceptance is

complete as against the acceptor, but not afterwards.”

 A plain perusal of the contents of this section lead to the fact that

after the communication of the acceptance is complete, revocation

of contract cannot be done. Therefore allotting new contracts in

the districts where already the applicant is doing work as per the

contents of contract is in violation of section 5 of the Indian

Contract Act as well.

7. That in case titled CITI Bank N.A. v. Standard Chartered Bank

(2004), it was held by the Supreme Court that both the contracting

parties must consent to substituting the old contract with a new

one. Where only one of the parties tries to unilaterally bring about

novation, there is no good novation. Moreover for novation to take

place, there must be mutual consent between the parties which is

totally absent in the present case.

8. That the concession available to MSME have not been incorporated in

the NIT which needs to be incorporated so as to give a boost to the

medium and small scale enterprises as per the policy of Govt of India.
 I therefore thorough the medium of this

representation request you to advise JKRTC to exclude from purview

of ENIT No. JKRTC/GML/CHT/J/517 dated 06-06-2023 floated by

JKRTC, district Rajauri, Doda, Ramban and Kishtwar. The needful

may be done witih a period of 1 week positively.

With regards

Yours sincerely

M/S Star Transport Company

Place-
Dated-