( 1 ) THIS civil revision application provides an illustration as to what happens when civil courts pass orders (ad-interim or interim) without taking into consideration the natural and ordinary consequences flowing therefrom. The case on hand illustrates what a chaotic situation is created in public admi- nistration and public finance and how the working of the State/public sector undertaking is paralysed and what an immense damage is done to the party who is really affected and yet not joined in the suit merely because the lower courts failed to take little more care at the initial stage. Therefore. the ques- tion arises in certain type of cases should the civil courts issue even ex-parte ad interim orders without putting the plaintiff to any terms ? Should the litiga- tion which can be indulged into without any risk and which is likely to cause public damage be encouraged would it not be proper if the lower courts be little more careful and circumspect while passing orders (ad interim or interim) even at the initial stage in matters which are likely to have wider ramifications in the realm of public administration and public finances?

( 2 ) THE facts in brief leading to this revision application are as follows: the Gujarat Electricity Board by advertisement dated 13/07/1984 invited tenders for sale of 700 m. t. of iron scrap lying at Ukai. Serveral parties filed in tenders. The tenders were to be opened on 1/09/1984 There is no dispute with regard to the fact that there were 21 tenderers including the petitioner and the tender filled in by the petitioner was also held to have been submitted within time. It is an admitted position that the petitioner-plaintiff quoted the rate of Rs 2331/- per m. t. and also stipulated further condition to the effect that the payment will be made in five instalments and delivery shall be taken in five instalments each instalment being of no days duration. Respondent No. 5 herein had quoted the rate of Rs. 2304. 00 per m. t. but had stipulated no condition for instalments. It appeals that respondent No. 5 wrote a letter dated September 24 1984 and raised its offer to Rs. 2365. 00 per mt. The Board informed the petitioner by its letter dated 19/10/1984 that the offer made by the petitioner has not been considered and therefore the petitioner was requested to send duly stamped receipt for the refund of the earnest money paid by the petition. On the same day the Board informed respondent No. 5 that the tender filled in by it was accepted. Before the contract could be executeed by respondent No. 5 and the Board. the petitioner tiled the suit on 5/11/1984. The petitioner contended that the lender filled in by the petitioner was the highest and that the petitioners tender ought in to have been accepted by the Board. The petitioner further contended that against the terms of auction respondent No. 5 revised its offer within the validity period and thereby disqualified itself from being considered and therefore the Board could not have accepted the tender of respondent No. 5. Be it noted that the petitioner did not join respondent No. 5 in the suit and made aforesaid prayers. Respondent No. 5 has been joined in civil revision application as per the direction given by this Court.

( 3 ) IN the suit the Board appeared and contended that the acceptance of the tender of respondent No. 5 was perfectly legal and valid and there was nothing unlawful or illegal. It was also submitted that if the offers made by the petitioner (Rs. 2331/- per m. t.) were properly scrutinised and it was not the highest offer but it as next to the highest. this was so because the petitioner had stipulated the condition to take delivery within 100 days and the petitioner was to make payment by five instalments each instalment being of 20 days duration. If the loss of interest at the rate of 18% per annum for 100 days is taken into consideration it would come to little over Rs. 64000. 00 and the total net price which