SURAJ SHARMA AND OTHERS vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Issue notice. Ms. Sindhu Sharma, ASGI waives notice on behalf of respondents.

This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against order dated 23.05.2018 passed by the learned writ Court in IA No.1/2018 (in OWP No.1011/2018)

whereby application filed by the writ petitionersappellants for grant of interim relief has been dismissed.Â

The writ petitioners-appellants filed writ petition whereby they have questioned the process of tendering and allotment of shops earlier allotted to

them on payment of prescribed rates. It is the case of the writ petitioners-appellants that official respondents could not have re-tendered the shops for

allotment and they should have been permitted to continue.Â

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents submits that all the writ petitioners-appellants had participated in the tendering process and

after having remained unsuccessful, they cannot turnaround to question the same.Â

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of writ Court as also the appeal.

Perusal of the impugned order reveals that learned Writ Court, after placing reliance on various judgments of the Supreme Court, observed that writ

petitioners-appellants once participated in the tendering process and remained unsuccessful in the said process, they cannot be permitted to approbate

or reprobate. It is also said by the learned writ Court that the parties who have been successful and allotted the shops/sites after the tendering process

have also not been made the party-respondents. Accordingly, learned writ Court after issuing notice in the main petition dismissed the application for

grant of interim relief and directed for consideration of the main matter after objections are filed by the respondents, and it was also provided that the

writ petitioners-appellants shall be allowed to continue to use the shop sites till the contractual period is over.Â

There is no denial that there is an agreement between the parties and as per said agreement it has been provided that the same is for a period of 11

months and will be terminated by either party on the month’s notice subject to certain conditions. There is also no denial that for allotment of

shops fresh tender notice has been issued. The writ petitioners-appellants have out of their own volition participated and competed in the tender notice

with other tenderers. After having remained unsuccessful, they filed the writ petition wherein notice was issued in the main petition and interim

application dismissed by providing that no case for interim relief was made out.

It is settled legal position of law that grant or refusing temporary injunction rests on the sound exercise of discretion of the Courts and such exercise

or discretion cannot be lightly interfered with by the appellate Court unless it is shown that such exercise of discretion is unreasonable or capricious.

The area of interference of discretionary orders passed by the courts below in exercise of the discretion vested in them by the appellate court in

appeal against such orders is, although, not so much restricted, still it is not as wide as the normal and ordinary appellate powers of an appellate court

in dealing the appeals, the power is indeed very much restricted in its scope. Having said so, learned Single Judge, taking into consideration over all

case set up before it, was right in dismissing the interim application and declining to pass interim relief sought for by the writ petitioners-appellants. The

learned Writ Court, after presuming the availability of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss with the writ petitioners-

appellants, passed the impugned order, which is and cannot be interfered with unless the order on the face of it is illegal and findings recorded are

perverse. The discretionary orders cannot be interfered with unless the order is bad in law. The order impugned, on its bare perusal, is a well-reasoned

order and need not be interfered with.

Viewed thus, we do not find any reason to differ with the views taken by the learned Single Judge in writ petition. Accordingly, the impugned order

of learned Single Judge dated 23.05.2018 passed in OWP No.1011/2018 is upheld and appeal is dismissed along with connected MP(s), if any.

However, this order shall not preclude the writ petitioners-appellants from approaching the writ Court for appropriate interim direction in the matter

on any account not already pleaded before the writ Court, if need arises.