M/S. C.Suresh Reddy And Co. vs Union Of India
2021 Latest Caselaw 1570 Tel

Item No.44

       THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
                          AND
       THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY

           I.A.No.1 OF 2021 IN/AND W.A.No.172 OF 2021

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Hima Kohli)

1.    I.A.No.1 of 2021 has been filed by the appellant praying inter alia

for grant of leave to file the present appeal against the judgment dated

20.04.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.22100 of

2020, filed by the respondent No.5/writ petitioner, on the ground that the

impugned order has adversely effected the appellant, who was not a

party in the writ petition.

2. At the outset, learned counsel for the respondent No.5/writ

petitioner opposes the present application and clarifies that though the

appellant had not been impleaded as a party in the writ proceedings,

it had on its own filed an application for impleadment in the said

proceedings, registered as I.A.No.1 of 2021 and another application for

seeking vacation of the interim order, registered as I.A.No.2 of 2021, but

later on, it had withdrawn both the applications, as noted by the learned

Single Judge in the order dated 20.03.2021, the date on which judgment

was reserved in the writ petition.

3. The appellant was well aware of the fact that the respondent

No.5/writ petitioner had filed a writ petition challenging the action of

the respondents therein of disqualifying its bid in respect of tender

No.52-CAO-C-SC-2020, as illegal. It is the case of the appellant that it

was already declared as L-1 by the Department. Admittedly, the appellant had filed an application for impleadment and vacation of the

interim orders in the writ proceeding, which for the reasons best known

to it, were not pressed. Instead, both the applications were withdrawn.

The appellant elected to rely on the Government authorities to defend

their decision of declaring the appellant as L-1. The Government

authorities have accepted the impugned judgment. In view of the

aforesaid facts and circumstances, which are not denied by learned

counsel for the appellant, we see no reason to grant leave to the appellant

to file the present appeal. Learned counsel for the respondent No.5 has

also informed the court that after the impugned judgment came to be

passed on 20.04.2021, the subject tender was awarded in favour of the

respondent No.5 on 04.06.2021 and the work is to commence soon.

That is an additional reason for this court to decline to entertain the

present application and grant leave to the appellant, as prayed for.

4. Leave is declined. I.A.No.1 of 2021 is dismissed. As a result, the

appeal also stands dismissed along with the pending applications, if any.

_________________ HIMA KOHLI, CJ

______________________ B.VIJAYSEN REDDY, J

07.06.2021 Lrkm/pln