IMPORTANT POINT
The court ruled that ex-parte interim orders in public procurement should be avoided to prevent disruption of essential services, emphasizing timely decision-making in such matters.

JUDGMENT :

Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, C.J.

1. This appeal is directed against the interim order dated 25.06.2024 passed by the learned Vacation Judge, by which an ex-parte interim order has been passed in favour of respondent No.1 (writ petitioner) restraining appellants (official respondents in the writ petition) to issue work order to respondent No.2 herein (respondent No.5 in the writ petition) in pursuant to letter of intent dated 10.06.2024 and NIT dated 07.12.2023.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the learned Vacation Judge passed an ex-parte interim order even without hearing the appellants and without material facts brought to its notice. The appellants applied for vacating stay by filing an application for vacation of stay on 10.07.2024 on various substantial grounds but the application remained pending despite several prayers made for expeditious disposal. Therefore, the said interim order was challenged by filing an appeal, which was disposed off on 06.08.2024 with a request to the learned Single Judge to hear the application for vacating stay at the earliest preferably within a period of one week. However, the application was not considered despite repeated prayers made. Therefore, the appellant had approached this Court by filing an application seeking restoration of the appeal and consideration of the same on merits and vide order dated 21.09.2024, this prayer was allowed and the appeal stood restored to its original number.

3. On merits, it is submitted that the present is a case pertaining to award of work for supply of conveyor belts, which is extremely essential for transportation of coal to boiler in the thermal plants and failure in the procurement of conveyor belts in time would lead to serious complexities resulting in stoppage of thermal power production and obstruction in supply of electricity in the State. It is argued that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the learned Vacation Judge ought not to have passed the ex-parte interim order without hearing the appellants.

It is next submitted that the appellants proceeded to award contract and issued letter of intent in favour of respondent No.3. He being L-1, the decision to award contract to respondent No.3 as lowest bidder was premised on fiscal prudence after taking into consideration entire aspect of the matter, particularly taking into consideration that during the period of alleged debarment, in fact, respondent No.3 was granted supply orders by the NTPC itself taking into consideration the performance of the lowest bidder/respondent No.3. Therefore, the decision making process did not suffer from any manifest arbitrariness so as to warrant interference. The scope of judicial review in tender matters is extremely limited. The learned Single Judge did not appreciate that only on technical ground made out, procurement ought not to be stayed. He further placed reliance upon various decisions including the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in N.G. Projects Ltd. vs. Vinod Kumar Jain & Ors. [2022(6) SCC 127]. It is submitted that Hon’ble Supreme Court has time and again reiterated that in the matters of public projects, injunction should not be lightly granted. He would submit that even after filing an application for vacating stay, his application has not been heard till date and therefore, the appellant, which is a public functionary, was left with no option but to challenge the ex-parte interim order by way of this appeal. He would submit that interim order needs to be urgently vacated as procurement of conveyor belts despite issuance of letter of intent way back in the month of June 2024 has remained stayed. Referring to documents on record, he would submit that various power projects are in dire need of conveyor belts and if it is not supplied to them in time, serious complexity may arise which would adversely affect production of electricity and would be contrary to public interest. He would further submit that the