Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
M/S Trinity Reinsurance vs Ut Of J And K And Ors on 2 April, 2026
Serial No. 92
Supp. Cause List
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
WP(C) 632/2023
CM 1609/2026
M/S TRINITY REINSURANCE ...Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s).
BROKERS LTD TH. ITS
DIRECTOR
Through: Mr. M.I. Dar, Advocate with
Mr. Mohammad Yawar Hussain, Advocate
Vs.
UT OF J AND K AND ORS. ...Respondent(s).
Through:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHD YOUSUF WANI, JUDGE
ORDER
02.04.2026
1. Issue notice in the main petition as well as in the interim application to the
respondents, returnable within a period of four weeks, subject to taking of
steps within a week’s time for filing reply/objections.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner in respect of his prayer
for grant of relief in the interim application bearing CM No. 1609/2026 and
considered his submission.
3. The case of the petitioner, in nutshell, is that the petitioner company is an
approved and registered Composite Broker (Insurance and Reinsurance) with
the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI),
having its Head Office at First Floor, B-2 Sector-7, Noida, Gautam Buddha
Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. That his company has been engaged in the field of
insurance broking for more than two decades and has consistently provided
services to various State/UT Governments and Public Sector Undertakings
(PSUs) across India by participating in and securing contracts through
competitive tendering processes. That during this period, the performance of
company has been duly acknowledged, commended, and appreciated
1 | Page
nationwide. That notably, in the last two decades, no State/UT Government or
PSU has ever debarred or blacklisted his company from participating in any
tender.
That, however, for the first time, the Government of Jammu & Kashmir
has arbitrarily and without any cogent or justified reason issued a
debarment/blacklisting order dated 12.01.2026 issued nearly seven years
after the suo-moto termination of the Contract by the J&K Government. That
the said debarment/blacklisting order was uploaded on the website of the
Finance Department of the J&K Government without furnishing any prior
notice, information, or copy of the order to his company. That moreover, the
order was issued without considering detailed reply submitted by him in
response to the Show Cause Notice dated 29.05.2025.
That the Government of Jammu & Kashmir floated a national-level
tender on 15.06.2017 for submission of technical bids and appointment of
IRDAI-registered Insurance Brokers for designing and implementing a
Group Mediclaim Insurance Policy intended for more than 3.5 lakh
Government employees. That upon completion of all codal formalities, the
said tender was awarded to the his Company vide Letter of Intent/Award
dated 08.09.2017, and thereafter a formal Contract dated 27.11.2017 was
executed between the Government of J&K, through the Director Budget,
Finance Department (Nodal Officer Insurance), and his Company.
That thereafter, the Government of J&K floated another tender on
16.02.2018 for submission of financial bids and appointment of IRDAI-
registered Insurance Companies for the implementation of the aforesaid
Group Mediclaim Insurance Policy. That since only one bid was received,
the said tender was withdrawn. That with the objective of ensuring wider and
2 | Page
competitive participation, a fresh tender was issued on 01.06.2018 with
modified eligibility criteria for appointment of IRDAI-registered Insurance
Companies. That Reliance General Insurance Company Limited (RGICL)
emerged as the L1 bidder, having quoted nearly 40% lower than the L2
bidder, and was accordingly awarded the tender.
That subsequently, a Tripartite Agreement dated 15.10.2018 was
executed between the Government of J&K, through the Joint Director
(Resources), Finance Department, the Petitioner Company, and RGICL for
implementation of the aforesaid Insurance Scheme. That upon execution of
the contract dated 27.11.2017, his Company immediately commenced
performance of all obligations assigned to it under the tender. That he has
not only fulfilled the contractual scope of work but also, at the specific
request of the State Government and in terms of the additional scope inserted
in the contract dated 27.11.2017, undertook the manual collection and
digitization of data of more than 3.5 lakh employees. That this additional
work was executed by deploying substantial manpower entirely at its own
cost, without receiving a single penny from the Government of Jammu &
Kashmir, since the nature of the contract was purely technical and not
financial.
That under the regulatory framework, his Company was entitled only to
the brokerage payable by the Insurance Company, i.e., Reliance General
Insurance Company Ltd. (RGICL), in accordance with IRDAI guidelines,
and has never received any payment from the J&K Government to date. That
from the date of execution of the contract on 27.11.2017 up to the suo-moto
termination of the contracts by the J&K Government on 30.11.2018, his
Company incurred an expenditure of Rs. 5.94 Crores, against which the total
brokerage revenue received from RGICL was only Rs. 3.63 Crores (net of
3 | Page
TDS), that too paid belatedly in two installments on 20.11.2018 and
12.03.2019. That thus, he suffered a net loss of Rs. 2.31 Crores in
implementing the Scheme.
That thereafter, the General Administration Department (GAD),
Government of Jammu & Kashmir, vide communication dated 08.11.2018,
requested the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Jammu, to examine the entire
process relating to the allotment of the Group Mediclaim Insurance Scheme
to RGICL so as to determine whether the process was fair and transparent.
That, however, without awaiting the outcome of the inquiry by the premier
investigating agency, the Principal Secretary to the Finance Department
issued a Termination Notice dated 30.11.2018, abruptly terminating the
Group Mediclaim Insurance Scheme and the Contracts dated 27.11.2017 and
15.10.2018 with effect from 31.12.2018, without assigning any justified or
cogent reason.
That the ACB, Jammu, after conducting a thorough verification for nearly
one year, issued its Final Verification Report dated 27.11.2019, categorically
concluding that no irregularity has been found out during the course of
verification. That despite the unequivocal exoneration of his Company by the
said agency, nearly 2½ years later, due to certain political developments in
the UT and public statements made by political figures with apparent
political vendetta, the matter was reopened purely on account of political
pressure and media sensationalism. That consequently, the already-
concluded and closed matter was referred on 23.03.2022 to the Central
Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for reinvestigation. That the CBI, without
considering or referring to the ACB Final Verification Report dated
27.11.2019, registered FIR No. RC1232022A0004 on 19.04.2022.
4 | Page
That during the pendency of the CBI investigation, the Enforcement
Directorate (ED) also took cognizance and registered a separate case bearing
ECIR/SRZO/03/2023-437 to 441 dated 06.06.2023, initiating investigation
under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. That his Company
had no role or involvement in the alleged offences investigated either by the
CBI or by the ED. That nevertheless, due to political vendetta and pressure,
his Company was compelled to undergo unwarranted hardship and
harassment, despite having already been exonerated by the competent and
premier agency ACB. That FIR No. RC1232022A0004 dated 19.04.2022
registered by the CBI was challenged before the Hon’ble High Court of J&K
and Ladakh at Srinagar in WP(C) No. 295/2024, which, however, came to be
dismissed vide judgment dated 27.03.2024. Aggrieved thereby, his Company
filed LPA No. 88/2024, which is presently pending adjudication. That the
ECIR No. ECIR/SRZO/03/2023-437 to 441 dated 06.06.2023 registered by
the ED was challenged through WP(C) No. 2682/2023, which too was
dismissed vide judgment dated 11.07.2024. that against the said judgment,
his Company filed LPA No. 237/2024, which was later withdrawn with
liberty to avail all remedies available in law, since a Prosecution Complaint
No. 04/2025 came to be filed before the Hon’ble Court of Special Judge,
Anti-Corruption (CBI Cases) on 20.06.2025. That the said Prosecution
Complaint has been stayed by this Hon’ble Court in a batch of petitions, the
lead case being CRM(M) No. 522/2025. That during the pendency of the
LPA, the CBI filed Final Report/Charge Sheet No. 08 under Section 173
Cr.P.C. before the Court of the Ld. Special Judge, Anti-Corruption (CBI
Cases), Srinagar, on 12.12.2024. Significantly, the CBI exonerated the
principal beneficiary, namely Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.
(RGICL), from all allegations, while wrongly implicating his Company,
5 | Page
despite the fact that he had not received even a single penny from the
Government of J&K under the contract. That the Ld. Special Judge has not
yet taken cognizance of the said Charge Sheet. That, strangely and in a
wholly illegal and arbitrary manner, the Respondents, after an unexplained
gap of more than seven (7) years, issued a Show Cause Notice No. FD-
Code/102/2022-03-15 dated 29.05.2025 to his Company, clearly indicating
an intention to debar the Petitioner. That while concluding the notice, the
Nodal Officer, Insurance Section, Finance Department, called upon him to
“show cause as to why action for debarring you should not be initiated,”
thereby demonstrating that the Respondents had pre-decided and formed a
closed mind to debar his Company. That the Respondents also leveled
allegations of breach of contract, despite the fact that the contract had
already been terminated by the Respondents themselves vide letter dated
30.11.2018. That the issuance of such a Show Cause Notice after seven years,
on allegations relating to a contract already terminated by the Respondents,
seriously prejudiced his rights and interests, leaving no option but to invoke
Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by filing Arbitration
Case No. 20/2025 before the Court of the Ld. Additional District Judge,
Srinagar on 12.06.2025, wherein an initial interim protection was granted.
That however, upon filing of objections by the Respondents, his application
for interim measures came to be dismissed vide order dated 16.10.2025. That
thereafter, he challenged the said order by filing Arbitration Appeal No.
08/2025 before this Court on 04.11.2025. That this Court was pleased to pass
an Order dated 07.11.2025, granting liberty to him to file reply to the Show
Cause Notice within two weeks, and directing the Respondents to consider
such reply on merits. That in compliance with the said Order of the Hon’ble
High Court, he submitted a detailed reply to the Show Cause Notice on
6 | Page
20.11.2015. That, however, the Respondents, without considering the said
reply and in utter disregard to the law and principles of natural justice, issued
the Impugned Debarment/Blacklisting Order dated 12.01.2026, and uploaded
it on the official website without issuing any prior intimation or serving a
copy to him. That by the said Impugned Order, the Finance Department of
the Government of J&K has debarred/blacklisted his Company for two (2)
years from participating in any tender of the J&K Government.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner that the
applicant/petitioner has a strong prima facie case in its favour, as is evident
from a perusal of the petition, and that it has bright chances of success in the
proceedings. It is further submitted that the balance of convenience also tilts
in favour of the applicant/petitioner, and that the applicant/petitioner is likely
to suffer greater hardship in the event interim relief is not granted, as prayed
for.
5. Learned counsel further submits during the course of arguments that the
impugned order is in flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice,
having been passed at the back of the applicant-company. He further contends
that the impugned order is without jurisdiction, inasmuch as the contractual
rights and obligations are deemed to have ceased upon termination of the
contract. It is also contended that the impugned order travels beyond the
contents of the show cause notice.
6. It is further submitted that the impugned order has been passed after a lapse of
seven years from the termination of the contract and is, therefore, vitiated by
delay and laches. Learned counsel vehemently contends that the blacklisting
of the petitioner-company has not been carried out in accordance with the
authoritative judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court. It is submitted that
blacklisting of a company, which has far-reaching consequences, is not
7 | Page
permissible for a mere breach of contract. The impugned order, it is urged, has
seriously affected the livelihood of hundreds of employees of the
applicant/petitioner.
7. In support of his contentions, learned counsel places reliance on the
judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in UMC Technologies
Private Limited v. Food Corporation of India, reported as AIR 2021 SC 166;
M/s Techno Prints v. Chhattisgarh Textbook Corporation (arising out of
SLP (C) No. 10042/2023); and M/s A.K.G. Construction and Developers Pvt.
Ltd. v. State of Jharkhand & Ors. (arising out of SLP (C) No. 22669 of 2025,
decided on 2nd April, 2026).
8. Perused the interim application which is supported with an affidavit. Also
perused the main petition and the copies of documents enclosed with the same
as annexures thereto.
9. Prima facie case appears to be made out for indulgence of the Court.
10.List on 4th May, 2026. In the meantime, subject to any variation or
modification upon consideration of the objections/arguments of the other side,
and till the next date of hearing before the Bench, the operation of impugned
Government Order No. 16-FD of 2026 dated 12.01.2026, regarding
blacklisting/debarring of M/s Trinity Reinsurance Brokers Ltd., shall remain
in abeyance.
(MOHD YOUSUF WANI)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR
02.04.2026
“Mubashir ”
8 | Page
