Explore the intricacies of court intervention in interim orders with a focus on legal analysis. This summary delves into the considerations and implications behind such interventions, shedding light on the complexities of the legal process. Stay informed and gain valuable insights into the legal realm.
Facts
- The present appeals are against an interim order by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan
- The order was passed on 29 May, 2020 and 10 June, 2020 in an intra-court appeal
- The High Court ordered a status quo with a further direction that formalities may proceed but the contract cannot be signed without the Court’s permission
- Pre-bid conference held and clarifications/amendments issued.
- Clause 5(5)(i) retained as is.
- Writ petitions filed challenging tender conditions and clarification.
- Petitions dismissed by Single Bench of High Court on 19 May 2020.
- Technical bids opened on 20 May 2020, appellants found successful.
- Letter of intent issued on 21 May 2020.
- High Court maintained interim order on 10 June 2020.
- Queries raised by writ petitioners regarding clause 5(5)(i) before High Court.
Also Read: Interpretation of Mandatory Statutory Time Limits
Arguments
- Mr. Kapil Sibal argues that eligibility criteria should be determined by the Agency inviting bids
- Appellant has granted short-term tender to the writ petitioners for 38 locations
- Short-term tenderers offered 42% revenue compared to 71% offered by successful bidders after competitive bidding
- Appellant will suffer financial loss if tenderers are not permitted to manage and operate warehouses
- Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation Ltd. is appealing against the interim order
- Mr. Akhil Sibal argued that acceptance of an offer is complete once the letter of intent is posted or sent by e-mail, making the contract binding from the tenderer’s perspective.
- Mr. R.K. Mathur, Mr. Gourab Banerji, and Mr. Shyam Divan contended that the Special Leave Petitions are against an interim order, suggesting that the Court should not interfere with the interim order in place.
- They mentioned that the appellant was granted the liberty to seek leave from the High Court for executing the contract but chose to approach the Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India instead.
Also Read: Reservation Shortfall for Hindu Nadar Community
Analysis
- The argument that Special Leave Petitions are against an interim order is not considered valid by the Court.
- The Court generally does not interfere in interim orders in appeals under Article 136 of the Constitution.
- In this case, the Division Bench issued a stay order without providing any reasons, which could impact state revenue.
- The Court cannot allow public interest to be compromised and hence must intervene in this situation.
- The Court refrained from commenting on the merits of arguments raised by parties as the matters were pending before the High Court for final determination.
- Once the bidding process is complete, the appellant is entitled to take work from successful bidders rather than short-term tenderers granted contracts in exigency.
- Grant of interim order to restrain successful bidders from executing contracts in contractual matters is not in public interest, especially in cases like storage of food articles for State Government warehouses.
- Grant of interim order impinging upon the grant of contract by the appellant was deemed not in public interest, especially without recording reasons when the Writ Petition was dismissed by the Learned Single Judge.
- The Court set aside the orders granting status quo dated May 29, 2020, and June 10, 2020, while allowing the present appeals.
Also Read: Legal Analysis on Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
Decision
- Leave granted for the contract subject to high court orders
- Grant of contract subject to pending intra-court appeals
Case Title: RAJASHTHAN STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION Vs. STAR AGRIWAREHOUSING AND COLLATERAL MANAGEMENT LIMITED (2020 INSC 444)
Case Number: C.A. No.-002651-002656 / 2020
