Disposed

M/S Naseer Ahmad Sheikh through Its Proprietor v. Union Territory of J and K and Others (Health and Family Welfare)

J&K HC7 Sept 2026WP(C)/2131/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by a petitioner blacklisted for a sanitation services GeM tender. The court held that after receiving the petitioner's reply to the showcause notice, the respondents are obligated to consider it and pass a speaking order within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's reply and pass a speaking order within two weeks.

M/S Naseer Ahmad Sheikh through Its Proprietor Vs… — Public Procurement and Tenders | J&K HC (2026)

¶1

S. No. 194 Regular

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR

¶3

WP(C) No. 2131/2026 CM No. (5777/2026)

¶4

M/s Naseer Ahmad Sheikh …Petitioner/Appellant(s)

¶5

Through: Mr. Firdous Ahmad Bhat, Advocate

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Union Territory of J&K And Ors. ...Respondent(s)

¶8

Through: Mr. Fahim Nisar Shah, GA

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE ORDER

¶10

07.09.2026

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶12

His main grievance is that he has been shown an L1 for GeM Tender for sanitation services vide Bid No. GEM/2026/B/7852507 dated 30.07.2026 and that the respondents have proceeded to issue a notice to him on 20.08.2026 asking him to clear his stand since there are allegations that his firm has been blacklisted besides a criminal case stood registered. It is his case that in apropos to the aforesaid showcause notice, the petitioner has given a detailed reply on 22.08.2026 and that the respondents have not considered his reply till date forcing him to file the writ petition.

¶13

When confronted with aforesaid factual position, the counsel for the respondents fairly conceded that once the reply has been filed by the petitioner, the respondents are under corresponding obligation to consider and dispose of that reply.

¶14

Given the aforesaid background, this petition is disposed of at the admission stage. Since the petitioner was asked to clarify regarding his eligibility, blacklisting and a criminal case, which the petitioner has given a detailed reply on 22.08.2026. Once said reply has been placed with the respondents, the latter are under corresponding obligation to consider that reply and proceed to dispose of the case of the petitioner.

¶15

In that background, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to ponder over the said clarification if any laid by the petitioner and proceed to pass a speaking order within two weeks under an intimation to the petitioner.

¶16

6. Disposed of.

¶17

(SANJAY PARIHAR) JUDGE

¶18

SRINAGAR: 07.09.2026 Akhil Dev

M/S Naseer Ahmad Sheikh through Its Proprietor v. Union Territory of J and K and Others (Health and Family Welfare)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Naseer Ahmad Sheikh through Its Proprietor v. Union Territory of J and K and Others (Health and Family Welfare)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases