COURT NO.1
HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM : GANGTOK
Record of Proceedings
WA No. 04/2022
SONAM TSEWANG BHUTIA & ORS. APPELLANT (S)
VERSUS
STATE OF SIKKIM & ORS. RESPONDENT (S)
For Appellants : Mr. Karma Thinlay, Senior Advocate.
Mr. Yashir Namgyal Tamang, Advocate.
For Respondents : Dr. Doma T. Bhutia, Addl. Advocate General.
Mr. S.K. Chettri, Govt. Advocate.
Date: 26/08/2022
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWANATH SOMADDER, CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHASKAR RAJ PRADHAN, JUDGE
...
JUDGMENT : (per the Hon'ble, the Chief Justice)
This Intra-Court Mandamus Appeal arises from an order dated 08th July,
2022, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP (C) No.34 of 2022
(Sonam Tsewang Bhutia & Ors. Vs. State of Sikkim & Ors.). By the impugned
order, the learned Single Judge has been pleased to issue notice to all the
respondents and kept the writ petition pending without passing any ad-interim
order, as prayed for by the petitioners. The writ petitioners are now before this
Court as appellants praying for issuance of such ad-interim order(s) as prayed
for before the learned Single Judge.
After considering the submissions made by the learned advocates for the
parties and upon perusing the pleadings on record and also the order impugned,
being the order dated 08th July, 2022, we notice certain facts. The notice
inviting tender is dated 28th of February, 2022. It was published on 08th of
March, 2022. The writ petition was filed on 05th July, 2022. The writ petitioners
were never participants in the tender process which is the subject matter of
challenge before the Writ Court. However, it appears that they obtained certain
Page 1 of 3 COURT NO.1 HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM : GANGTOK Record of Proceedings
information after invoking the Right to Information Act. Based on such
information, they filed the writ petition seeking such reliefs as prayed for in the
writ petition.
The learned senior counsel representing the appellants/writ petitioners
takes us through the pleadings and submits that the entire tender process was
vitiated due to gross irregularities and illegalities, which came out in the open
only after information was obtained under the Right to Information Act.
Learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State, on
the other hand, submits that the writ petitioners do not have any locus standi to
approach the writ Court without having even participated in the tender process.
She further submits that most of the work has already been completed and just
a portion of the work remains to be finished and as such, the Court may not
interfere at this belated stage.
The only question which falls for consideration before this Court is whether
we can grant any ad-interim relief to the appellants/writ petitioners as prayed
for in the writ petition.
Considering the facts of the instant case, as stated earlier, if we restrain
the concerned respondents from taking any further steps pertaining to the
tender in question at this belated stage, it will tantamount to Court's
interference in stopping a public work without even considering the entire
spectrum of the facts which are relevant and are required to be considered by
the writ Court since the writ petition is pending before the learned Single Judge.
We are of the view that the rights of the parties and the issues raised by the
appellants/writ petitioners before the writ Court are yet to be finally adjudicated
upon and any observation from this Court may have a binding effect before the
learned Single Judge, which we are loathed to do so at this preliminary stage.
We are, however, of the view that this Intra-Court Mandamus Appeal can be
disposed of at this stage itself with an observation that the tendering process --
which has already commenced and is about to be completed -- shall abide by
Page 2 of 3 COURT NO.1 HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM : GANGTOK Record of Proceedings
the result of the writ petition while keeping the point of locus standi, as sought
to be raised by the learned Additional Advocate General as also the point of
maintainability of the writ petition, open, to be decided by the learned Single
Judge.
We make it clear that any observation made by us in this order shall not
be construed by the parties as a decision on the rights of the parties in any
manner, which shall be finally adjudicated upon by the learned Single Judge in
accordance with law.
The writ appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
(Bhaskar Raj Pradhan) (Biswanath Somadder)
Judge Chief Justice
jk/bp/ami
Page 3 of 3
