1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR A.O.NO.107 OF 2009 Bhagyashree Institute of Information Technology through Partner Prashand S.Lande and ors. ..vs.. The District Setu Samiti through its Ex.Officio Chairman the Collector, Amt. =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Mr.Rahul Ghuge,Adv. for the appellants. Mr.A.G.Mujumdar, AGP for the respondent. Mr.M.I.Dhatrak,Adv. for the Intervenor. C ORAM : Smt.R.P.SondurBaldota,J. DATED : 8th January, 2010. 1. This appeal is preferred against the interim order dated 9th of July, 2009, by which the trial court dismissed the application filed by the appellants for an interim injunction to restrain the respondents from allotting tenders for starting SETU Centers on the basis of public notice dated 17th October, 2009 published in “Daily Deshonnati”. 2. In the year 2003, the tenders given by all the 2 appellants were accepted by the respondents for starting and running SETU Centers at different places in district Amravati. At some of the Centers the place for running the same was made available by the respondents and at some places the appellants were required to construct the same. The charges for the two types of Centers i.e. the Center where the place made available by the respondents and Center at which the appellants had to construct premises were fixed differently. The term of the agreement to run the centers was of five years. It expired with efflux of time on 31st March, 2008. It is common ground that there was no written agreement executed for establishing and running SETU Centers. Both the sides blame each other for not executing the agreement in writing. It appears that in the month of January, 2009 and in the month of April, 2009 the appellants had requested the respondents to extend the period of agreement by another five years ostensibly to make good the monitory loss allegedly suffered by them because of the conduct of the respondents. The letter were neither replied to nor acted upon. Instead the respondent issued public notice for fresh tenders. Therefore the appellants filed suit the for a declaration that the invitation of tenders by the respondents in public notice dated 17th February, 2009 is illegal and contrary to the 3 agreement with the appellants and for a declaration that the appellants are entitled to run the respective SETU Centers on revised rates till the loss suffered by the appellants is made good. They also seek injunction to restrain the respondents from opening and allotting tenders to the fresh applicants on the basis of the invitation to bidders published on 17th February, 2009. 3. The application for interim relief by the appellants was rejected by the trial court on the ground that the term of the agreement to run the SETU Centers had already expired. There was no substance in the allegation that there was any loss suffered by the appellants on account of the respondents. Also there was no irreparable loss established by the appellants. It may be mentioned here that the appellants have sought damages to the extent of Rs.17,30,25,792/- from the respondents. 4. Mr.Ghuge, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the conduct of the respondents in allowing the appellants to continue to run the Center after expiry of the contract after the requests of extension would amount to extension of the contract. To buttress of his argument he relies upon the decision of Apex court in Bharat Petroleum Corpn. 4 Ltd. vs. Great Eastern Shipping Co.Ltd. Reported in AIR 2008 SC 357. Perusal of the judgment shows that the facts of the case are entirely different from facts of the present case. In the proceedings before the Apex court there were negotiations going on between the parties for extending the Time Charter. During such negotiations, there was no communication between the parties for almost two months and on this background the court had held that the Time Charter had not come to an end by efflux of time. In the present case, the respondents have categorically denied in their written statement filed in the trial court that there was any assurance given by respondent no.1 that the period of the agreement would be extended as per the request. There was no discussion whatsoever between the parties for continuation of the contract. The fact that the respondents issued advertisement for fresh tenders prima facie establishes their intent in not extending the contract of the appellants. Merely because the appellants have been allowed to run the SETU Centres, the continuation of the contract can not be inferred. SETU Centre is a facility made available to general public. That could not have been interrupted. Ideally the respondents could have started with the procedure of calling for new tenders prior to the date of expiry of the appellants contracts. But that is ideal 5 situation. 5. Second decision cited by the learned counsel is in Hyderabad Municipal Corporation ..vs.. M.Krishnaswami Mudaliar and Mudaliar and anr. reported in (1985)2 SCC 9l. This case can also be distinguished on facts because the question of extension before the court there was extension for completing the drainage work assigned to the appellant. The court had taken the view that when the appellant had requested for extension of time to complete the work, no reply was sent by the Government and “a studied silence was maintained by the Government in regard to the respondent’s demand for extra payment, in spite of several reminders in their behalf, till the respondent actually completed the work during the spread over period and only when after completion of work the respondent submitted his final bill claiming 20 per cent extra over and above the rates originally agreed upon between the parties the Government stated that he was not entitled to increased rates. In the instant case the Government by their action by issuing the advertisement on 17th February, 2009 calling for fresh tenders has indicated that it does not desire to extend the contract with the appellants. Therefore, I find no substance in the argument put forth by the learned 6 counsel for the appellants. 6. The trial court has also rightly appreciated that the appellants have failed to establish that any irreparable loss or damages would be caused to them if the interim relief as sought is not granted. The loss contemplated by the appellants can clearly be calculated in terms of money. In the circumstances, there can be no interference with the impugned order. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. 7. The learned counsel for the appellants then requests for continuation of the ad-interim order dated 23rd July, 2009 granting status quo for reasonable period to enable the appellants to carry the order further. The application is opposed by the respondents on the ground that the tender process is already initiated and that tenders have been received by the respondents. However, the tenders are yet to be opened, scrutinized and decision taken as regards awarding the contracts to the successful bidders. This would take some time. Therefore, the interim order dated 23rd July,2009 is extended until the process of accepting the tenders is complete and the contracts awarded to the successful bidders. In view of disposal of the appeal against order, 7 Civil Application No.1 of 2010 filed by the third parties for intervention in the appeal does not survive. The same is accordingly disposed off. JUDGE. chute