High Court opens the door for important police initiatives that had been put on hold

By amending an interim decision issued in March of last year, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has cleared the way for the development of significant police initiatives involving problems of national security.

Important police initiatives, including the building of an anti-corruption bureau office in Udhampur and a battalion headquarters in Kishtwar, had been put on hold because of the temporary order.

In his 12-page order issued last week, Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal stated, “The court is of the opinion that to buttonhole the project is in nobody’s interest but is only antithetical to the public interest…the project, in question, relates to a larger public interest, more so, when the question of national security is involved.”

The respondents had “misinterpreted the staying of the communication as a stay on the entire tender process,” the court said in its ruling.

On behalf of the government, Senior Additional Advocate General Monika Kohli filed an application with the bench requesting vacation of the interim order that the high court had issued on March 1, 2023, in response to a plea submitted by a contractor.

The contractor had filed a motion with the court on February 20, 2023, claiming that the petitioner’s business had completed less than Rs 10.5 crore of work and asking that all previous communications in this regard be deemed “null and void.” This led to the revocation of every certificate that had previously been granted to him, which complicated the new contractual job.

The construction of the Anti-Corruption Bureau Office in Kathori-Patnitop village in Udhampur and the headquarters of the Indian Reserve Police battalion, both of which cost Rs 1,713.50 lakh and Rs 1,752 lakh, respectively, are two prestigious police projects that Kohli claimed were being severely impacted by the interim order.

After hearing from the attorneys representing both sides, the court determined that Kohli’s arguments had merit and that it would not be in anyone’s best interests to keep the interim order in place, let alone the petitioner, who had been declared the lowest bidder.

“Instead, this court sees the continuation of the interim directive as a barrier to deciding the petitioner’s rights as presented in the current petition, and the petitioner will undoubtedly lose any leverage if this is maintained,” the bench said.

The court ruled that there was no general stay order that would have prevented the respondents from completing the offer legally.

The order stated, “The respondents have misinterpreted the staying of the communication as a stay on the entire tender process.” It went on to say that the court thought it appropriate to change the interim order, allowing the respondents to continue with the August 6, 2022, tender or, if necessary, publish a new tender.