Mr. Vijay Bishnoi, J.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-construction company being aggrieved with the order dated 28.03.2016 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 2, Bikaner (hereinafter referred to as the 'appellate court'), whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner-construction company has been dismissed. The petitioner-construction company has filed the said appeal before the appellate court being aggrieved with the order dated 06.01.2016 passed by the Additional Civil Judge No. 3, Bikaner (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial court'), whereby the application filed by the petitioner-construction company under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC along with suit for mandatory injunction has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-construction company has filed a suit for mandatory injunction before the trial court while claiming that it has submitted its bid pursuant to the NIT issued by the respondent in relation to some construction work to be carried out in the Biochemistry Department of the S.P. Medical College, Bikaner. It was submitted that though the bid of the petitioner-construction company is qualified in all respects, the respondents-Public Works Department has rejected the technical bid of the petitioner-construction company while treating it as non-responsive. It was claimed in the plaint that the petitioner-construction company is having all the requisite experience of construction work as required for the purpose of submitting bid, but Public Works Department has illegally not taken into consideration the said experience of the petitioner-construction company and illegally rejected the bid of the petitioner-construction company.

3. Along with the said suit an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC has been filed by the petitioner-construction company, however, the trial court has rejected the said application while observing that the petitioner-construction company has failed to prove prima facie case in its favour. The appeal preferred by the petitioner-construction company against the order of rejection of the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC has also been dismissed by the appellate court while observing that the construction work is of public importance and the same cannot be stayed. The appellate court has further observed that ultimately if the petitioner-construction company will succeed in its suit it can be compensated by awarding sufficient damages, therefore, no temporary injunction can be granted in favour of the petitioner-construction company.

4. After taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is also of the opinion that the construction work carried out by the Public Works Department is of public importance and the same cannot be stopped by way of temporary injunction and if the petitioner-construction company will succeed in the suit it can be compensated by awarding suitable compensation.

5. In view of the above, no force in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.

No order as to costs.

Stay petition also stands dismissed.