-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 233 OF 2003 1. The Government of Goa through the Secretary Health Department Secretariat, Panaji, Goa. 2. The Dean, Goa Medical College, R. G. Medical Complex, Bambolim, Goa, 403 202. …... Petitioners. V e r s u s 1. Shri Achuttan son of Shri Sivashankaran resident of type I, G.M.C. Qts Bambolim, Goa. 2. Mrs. Bertha Fernandes Behind Navelim Church Navelim Goa. …... Respondents Ms. Susan Linhares, Addl. Government Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. N. K. Sawaikar, Advocate for the Respondents. CORAM: R. M. SAVANT, J. DATE : 10 th November, 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT The dispute in the above Petition relates to the allotment of the Hospital Canteen, near corridor adjacent to the kitchen of the Goa Medical College, at Bambolim. -2- 2. The tenders for running the said Canteen were invited by the Petitioners on 20.11.1998 and the tender of the respondent no.1 herein, at monthly licence fee of Rs.33,000/- was accepted by letter dated 25.01.1999. It appears that thereafter the Canteen could not be allotted to the respondent no.1 in view of the fact that the occupant thereof one Shri G. Krishnan Kutty had filed Regular Civil Suit no. 143/1998. The Canteen was vacated by the said occupant on 27.11.2001. On such vacation, the Petitioners herein issued a fresh Tender Notice which was published in the local news papers on 31.12.2001. The said notice was challenged by the Respondent no.1 herein by filing a Writ Petition. The said Writ Petition was withdrawn to file Regular Civil Suit no.6/02 for specific performance of the contract as allegedly concluded by the letter dated 25.01.1999. In the said suit and application for temporary injunction was filed by the respondent no.1, which came to be granted by the Trial Court by Order dated 07.03.2002 and the Petitioners herein were directed to comply with the Tender Notice dated 23.11.1998. 3. Aggrieved by the said Order dated 07.03.2002, passed by the Trial Court, the Petitioners filed Civil Misc. Appeal no. 46/2002 in which initially a stay was granted to the Order passed by the Trial Court but ultimately the Appeal came to be dismissed by the impugned Order dated 23.01.2003. 4. In the interregnum, much water has flown and the said Canteen premises had been allotted to other third parties pursuant to the tenders invited by the Petitioners herein. The injunction was in respect of the Tender -3- Notice dated 21.11.1998. Obviously, at this point of time, the Respondent no.1 herein cannot be given the benefit of the injunction Order. The Suit filed by the Respondent is one for specific performance of the contract. The Respondent no.1 would, therefore, be at liberty to file an appropriate claim for damages if so advised. 5. In that view of the matter, the above Writ Petition would have to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The impugned Order dated 23.01.2003 is quashed and set aside and resultantly the Appeal filed by the Respondent no.1 being Civil Misc. Appeal No. 46/2002 would stand allowed. 6. Rule is accordingly made absolute in the aforesaid terms. R. M. SAVANT, J. arp/*