Antony Waste Handling Cell Private Limited vs Mr. Anbalagan Chief Administrative Officer Market Management Committee and Mr. Vikram Kapoor, I.A.S. Member Secretary

P. Jyothimani, J.—The contempt complained of is in respect of an interim order passed by this Court dated 24.10.2009 in M.P. No. 1 of

2009 in W.P. No. 21717 of 2009, by which this Court has granted an order of interim injunction for a period of four weeks against the first

Respondent from in any way allotting or extending the project pertaining to the integrated solid waste management system at Koyambedu

Wholesale Market Complex, Koyambedu as called for in tender notice D.I.P.R.1452/Tender/2009 to the third Respondent in the writ petition,

viz., Ramky Enviro Engineers Limited.

The writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner to forbear Respondents 1 and 2 from allotting the project in favour of Ramky Enviro Engineers

Limited, the third Respondent in the writ petition, on the basis that the third Respondent is disqualified as per the terms and conditions of the tender

and also for a consequential direction to allot the tender to the Petitioner company, viz., Antony Waste Handling Cell Private Limited, Commercial

Unit No. 3 and 4, II Floor, Kalash Vaibhav, Plot No. 21, Sector 11, Koparkhairane, Navi Mumbai - 400 079.

It is the case of the Petitioner that at the time when the interim order was granted, Mr. J. Ravindran, counsel appearing for the second

Respondent has taken notice. It is stated that after the order was passed, it was communicated to Respondents 1 and 2, however later it came to

be known that the contract has been granted to Ramky Enviro Engineers Limited, the third Respondent in the writ petition, which according to the

Petitioner is after the knowledge of the interim order passed by this Court and therefore, it amounts to gross contempt.

4.1. In the affidavit filed by the first Respondent, it is stated that for the purpose of carrying out work of ""Integrated sold waste management system

at KWMC"" a publication was made in the newspaper on 2.3.2009 with ""Request for Qualification"" published in the website. The pre-bid meeting

was convened on 20.3.2009 and the last date of receipt of tender document was 9.4.2009 up to 3.00 p.m. The selection process was carried out

in two stages, viz., first stage is ""Qualifying Stage"", where bidders were required to submit their proposal as per the formats and various

qualification, and the second stage is RFP.

4.2. Six tenderers participated, including the Petitioner and the third Respondent, and in the first stage, the Petitioner and the third Respondent,

apart from BEIL-UPEEL Consortium, Bhrooch District were qualified. After the second stage, the bids of the Petitioner and the third Respondent

were taken for technical evaluation and were found technically qualified. While the Petitioner has quoted Rs. 870/- per M.T., the third Respondent

has quoted Rs. 846/-per M.T., and after negotiation the third Respondent has reduced their rate to Rs. 830/-per M.T.

4.3 The award was granted to the third Respondent on 13.10.2009 by the first Respondent and that was much before the interim order passed by

this Court on 24.10.2009. Even though the agreement was concluded on 4.11.2009 by the first Respondent to the third Respondent in the writ

petition, since an order of injunction was granted, no further action was taken pursuant to the award and the site was ultimately handed over to the

third Respondent only on 1.2.2010, after the dismissal of the writ petition on 27.1.2010. Therefore, it is stated that the contract was concluded on

13.10.2009 before the order was passed by this Court and even though the agreement was entered on 4.11.2009, by that time the interim order

was granted the said agreement was not given effect to and further action was stopped and ultimately, the writ petition came to be dismissed on

27.1.2010 and thereafter, it was only on 1.2.2010 the site was handed over to the third Respondent and hence, according to the first Respondent,

there is no contempt. In any event, it is stated that the first Respondent has no intention to violate the order of the Court.

The second Respondent has also filed a counter affidavit to that effect.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that when once interim injunction was granted by this Court from allotting or extending the

project to the third Respondent on 24.10.2009, the admitted conduct of the first Respondent in entering contract with the third Respondent on

4.11.2009 should be taken as a contempt and subsequent dismissal of the writ petition on 27.1.2010 cannot exonerate the wilful conduct of the

first Respondent.

On the other hand, it is true that Mr. J. Ravindran has taken notice at the time when injunction was granted on 24.10.2009 and therefore, it must

be deemed that the first Respondent was having knowledge of the order of injunction passed by this Court. The nature of injunction is not to allot

the work in respect of integrated solid waste management to the third Respondent. Admittedly, the award of contract to the third Respondent was

completed on 13.10.2009 and that was much before the order of injunction passed by this Court. The agreement entered on 4.11.2009 is only a

consequential formality and entering of the agreement cannot be termed to be a violation of order of Court, especially when it is admitted by the

Respondents that immediately on knowing about the interim injunction order, the third Respondent was not directed to proceed further and

ultimately, the site was handed over to the third Respondent only on 1.2.2010. Therefore, the execution of work of integrated solid waste

management by the third Respondent, which has been injuncted, commenced only from 1.2.2010, by which time the writ petition itself came to be

dismissed on 27.1.2010.

Therefore, on the face of it, I do not see any violation of the interim order passed by this Court. It is true that subsequent dismissal of the writ

petition will not amount to condoning any wilful violation of the interim order, if such conduct has been committed and that is also settled law. But,

on the factual matrix, I do not see any violation of the interim order either by the first Respondent or the second Respondent.

In such view of the matter, I do not see any contempt of the order of this Court committed by the Respondents and therefore, this contempt

petition stands dismissed.