The court emphasized the need for expeditious resolution of disputes related to projects of national importance and highlighted the importance of balancing public interest and financial impact when granting stay orders.

( 1 ) THE National Highways Authority of India is the appellant in this appeal. It has undertaken the project of constructing a nation wide network of major national Highways connecting various parts of the country, including four metropolitan cities, viz. , delhi, Mumbai, Kolkatta and Chennai. The consolidated length of the Highways to be constructed is more than 6,000 Kms. This project is to be completed by december, 2004. The appellant states that this project is a milestone for overall development of the country, as it would lead to better inter-connectivity of different States and would lay a path of economic development. It is for this reason, it has been termed as "golden Quadrilateral".

( 2 ) FOR executing this project the appellant had invited Pre-Qualification applications from the prospective bidders. Many parties submitted their bids including the respondents. These bids were evaluated by the Evaluation Committee of the appellant which recommended the Pre-Qualification of 51 firms for the packages III and IV. Sealed bids from those who qualified were received on 26. 2. 2001. Tender bids were opened on 1. 3. 2001. As per the appellant the respondent no. 2, namely, M/s. Mudajaya-IRB (JV) L1 was the lowest bidder in respect of both the Packages III and IV. At this stage the respondent No. 2 made a representation dated 21. 3. 2001 along with documents to the effect that their project of "north South interurban Expressway Jawai to Alor Pangsu" should be included in calculating the particular work experience and upon inclusion of the same its Pre-qualification limit would exceed the aggregate limits for both the packages. The Evaluation Committee in its meeting held on 19. 3. 2001 recommended the award of work for package-III to M/s. Mudajaya-IRB (JV),respondent No. 2 and Package-IV to M/s. Backbone-Tarmat-NG-JV, respondent no. 1. Thereafter on representations made by both the respondents 1 and 2 the appellant herein took legal opinions and deliberated the matter further at different levels. It is not necessary, for the purpose of this appeal, to go into all these aspects. It is suffice to mention that the Board of Directors of the appellant herein decided to award the contract to respondent No. 2 of both the packages. Respondent No. 1 challenged this decision by filing Writ Petition no. 4955/2001 in this Court on 16. 8. 2001.

( 3 ) THIS writ petition came up for hearing on 21. 8. 2001, when the notice to show cause was issued for 18. 12. 2001. In application for stay, notice was issued for 24. 9. 2001 and parties were directed to file the reply. Interim order was passed to the following effect in the said CM;

"in the meantime, whatever action is taken by the respondent in respect of package IV it would be subject to the outcome of this writ petition".

( 4 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 filed LPA No. 428/2001 against the aforesaid order dated 21. 8. 2001 and prayed for stay of award of the contract. This LPA was disposed of by order dated 5. 9. 2001 which is in the following terms:

"heard. Without going into the question whether this appeal is maintainable, we dispose of the appeal with the following observations in view of the factual position which has been brought to our notice: mr. Rajiv Nayyar, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No. 1, submits that National Highway Authority of India, vide letter dated 30/08/2001, has required M/s Mudajaya-IRB (JV), respondent no. 2 herein, to furnish certain documents within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the said letter. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 states that the requisite documents are being filed We notice that the learned single Judge has fixed the interim application on 24/09/2001. In view of what has been indicated above, it will be appropriate if no final decision is taken in the matter by respondent No. 1 though the process initiated vide letter dated 30/08/2001 may continue. We make it clear that by making the aforesaid observation r