WA 308/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE J.CHELAMESWAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE I.A.ANSARI Aggrieved by a Judgment, dated 9.6.2009, in WP(C) 1934/2009, the appellant herei n, who, in our view, successful in the writ petition, preferred the present appe al in the background of some strange facts to be noticed herein. It appears that the appellant was awarded with certain works by the respondents/State by an ord er, dated 7.4.2001, but, for various reasons, which may not be relevant for the present purpose, the works could not be completed in terms of the contract betwe en the parties. On 8.9.2009, the appellant submitted a representation before 3rd respondent, in substance, seeking a re-negotiation of the concluded contract, but the responden ts declined to re-negotiate and issued an order, dated 11.5.2009, directing the appellant herein to stop the work and issued a fresh tender notice, dated 15.5.2 009, with reference to the works, in question. Challenging the abovementioned two decisions of the respondents - (i) directing the appellant herein to stop the works contracted and (ii) issuance of fresh ten der notice, dated 15.5.2009, approached this Court by way of the abovementioned writ petition. After hearing both the parties, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ pe tition by Judgment under appeal, by which, it is recorded that the appellant her ein will continue to execute the works under the contract between the parties, d ated 7.4.2001, and also the appellant would execute the works at the rates agree d to by him by the abovementioned contract without any escalation. Such a findin g came to be recorded in view of the concession made by the appellant. In other words, the learned Judge by necessary implication set aside the fresh tender not ice issued by the Respondents, on 15.5.2009. After the order came to be passed, as indicated above, initially, by the learned Single Judge, on 9.6.2009, the appellant preferred an application seeking a rev iew of the said order by way of MC 1675/09. Though various grounds were pleaded, the essence of the review application is that the concession made by the appell ant, which led to the passing of the order, dated 9.6.2009, was erroneous and it would be impossible on the part of the appellant to execute the works on the sa me rates, which were agreed to by him, way back in 2001. The learned Judge, by h is order, dated 1.7.2009, dismissed the said review application and hence, the p resent appeal. The order, dated 9.6.2009, is virtually a consent order. Therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of the appellant to say that it would be difficult for the appe llant to execute the works at the rates agreed to by him way back in 2001. The a ppellant ought to have kept this fact in mind before making such a concession at the time of hearing of the writ petition. On the basis of such a concession, th e learned Judge thought it fit to interfere with the tender notice dated 15.5.20 09 issued by the respondents. It is doubtful whether such an order would be pass ed in the writ petition, but for the concession made by the appellant. In the circumstances, we do not see any merit in this writ appeal and hence, the same is dismissed, at the admission stage.