WA 347/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE I. A. ANSARI THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A. C. UPADHYAY (Ansari, J.) On taking up this appeal for admission, Mr. A. B. Choudhury, learned Senior Coun sel, points out that by the impugned order, dated 01.10.2010, passed in WP(C) N os.5151 of 2010 and 5518 of 2010, the prayer for interim directions were decline d by the learned Single Judge of this Court and that this appeal has, as a matte r of fact, been preferred against the impugned order in WP(C) No.5518 of 2010 an d that the petitioner in the other writ petition, i.e., WP(C) No.5151 of 2010, w ill prefer separate appeal. We have accordingly heard the learned counsel for the parties on the admission o f this appeal. Heard Ms. B. Goyal, learned Government Advocate, Assam, appearing on behalf of r espondent Nos.1, 2 and 6, and Mr. B. Goswami, learned counsel appearing on behal f of the respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5. By order, dated 17.09.2010, passed in WP(C) No.5151 of 2010, the Court, in the i nterim, directed that no fresh tender shall be issued in respect of the Work me ntioned in the Tender Notice, dated 11.2.2010. However, when it was brought to t he notice of the Court, on 27.9.2010, that notwithstanding the said order of res traint, a Notice Inviting Tender had been published, on 24.09.2010, the Court di d not pass any further order on the ground that the said NIT had been floated by the Chief Engineer who was not aware of the interim order, dated 17.09.2010. By the order, dated 01.10.2010, which is under appeal, the learned Single Judge of this Court has declined to interfere with the interim order. The reason, assi gned for declining to pass any further interim order as stated in the order, dat ed 01.10.201, read as under : That apart, submission of tenders by the members of the petitioner’s Associatio n does create any right of consideration for settlement. Moreover, no prejudice has been caused to the members of the petitioner’s association in issuing the fr esh NIT by canceling the earlier NIT issued. The public interest involved also r equired that the tender process initiated by the NIT dated 18.9.2010 should be s talled. That being the position, I am not inclined to grant the interim prayer m ore so when public interest is involved in the matter. The prayer for interim order is, therefore, refused. On considering the matter in its entirety, we are of the view that in the given situation, it is for the Court to modify its own order and in the present case, the learned Single Judge has declined to interfere with the process of issuance of NIT, because of the fact that it was in public interest. That being the posit ion, we do not find that the impugned order needs any interference, at this stag e, except that the allotment of the work, pursuant to the NIT, dated 18.9.2010, shall be subject to such other or further order or orders as may be passed in t he writ petition. The appeal stands disposed of.