Syed Faisuddin, vs Mohammed Shoeb,
2023 Latest Caselaw 1414 Tel

  THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN

                                    AND

        THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI


                  WRIT APPEAL No.387 of 2023


JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)


       Heard Mr. B.Mayur Reddy, learned Senior Counsel

representing Mr. K.V.Raman, learned counsel for the

appellant; Mr. K.Raghuveer Reddy, learned counsel for

respondent No.1/writ petitioner; and Mr. Farhan Azam

Khan, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

2. This appeal is directed against the interim order

dated 17.03.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in

I.A.No.1 of 2023 in Writ Petition No.7580 of 2023 filed by

respondent No.1 as the petitioner.

3. Order dated 17.03.2023 reads as follows:

"The respondent - Waqf Board, having issued a tender notification fixing the minimum bid amount of Rs.2,80,00,000/-, failed to obtain the bids in response to the tender notification. However, without there being any 2 HCJ & NTRJ W.A.No.387 of 2023

further tender notification, the respondent - Waqf Board, in a clandestine manner, through the impugned Memo, dated 17.02.2023, awarded the work in favour of respondent No.3 for almost half of the minimum amount notified under the tender notice, when the petitioner therein is ready to pay more than Rs.2,00,00,000/-.

This Court, prima facie, feels that there is apparent misconduct on the part of the officials of the respondent - Waqf Board.

In the circumstances, pending further orders, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to forthwith withdraw the work awarded in favour of respondent No.3 and this interim order will be operative for a period of two weeks.

Post on 31.03.2023 in Adjourned Motion List. Meanwhile, learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to take out personal notice on respondent No.3 by RPAD and file proof of service by the next date of hearing.

The respondents are directed to file counter affidavits, if any, by the next date of hearing."

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant

submits that though the order dated 17.03.2023 is an

interim order, it has virtually partaken the character of a

final order in as much as learned Single Judge has directed

officials of the Telangana State Wakf Board to withdraw the

work awarded in favour of respondent No.3 (appellant). He 3 HCJ & NTRJ W.A.No.387 of 2023

submits that this can only be done as a final order and not

as an interim order. That apart, he submits that relevant

facts were not placed before the learned Single Judge, for

which learned Single Judge passed the aforesaid order.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for

respondent No.1 submits that order dated 17.03.2023 is an

interim order and the next date of admission hearing is

fixed on 31.03.2023. Therefore, at this stage, there should

be no interference. Further he submits that the contract

was awarded without any tender.

6. Without entering into the rival contentions, we

are of the view that since the writ petition is fixed for

further consideration on 31.03.2023, we should not

entertain the writ appeal. However, taking note of the

grievance expressed by the appellant, we clarify that

instead of directing officials of the Telangana State Wakf

Board to withdraw the work awarded in favour of

respondent No.3 (appellant), there shall be stay of the work

awarded till further orders.

                                4                    HCJ & NTRJ
                                              W.A.No.387 of 2023

7. With the above clarification, Writ Appeal is

disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

8. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications

pending, if any, in this Writ Appeal, shall stand closed.

_______________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ

_______________________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Date: 27.03.2023 KL