IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2010 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1932 WA.No. 845 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.14075/2010 Dated 20/05/2010 .................... APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER IN W.P.(C).NO.14075/2010: -------------- N.RAVINDRAN,AGED 59,S/O.NARAYANAN, RELESHR.VILLA,CHANGANKULANGARA,VAVVAKKAVU P.O, OACHIRA,KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT IN W.P.(C).NO.14075/2010: --------------- INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD,KERALA STATE OFFICE,PANAMPILLY AVENUE,PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KADAVANTHARA,KOCHI-682 036,REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF OPERATIONS MANAGER. BY ADV.SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN & S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ. ------------------------------- W.A.NO.845 OF 2010 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of May, 2010 J U D G M E N T THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. The 1st respondent Indian Oil Corporation invited tenders from Tanker truck operators. The cut off date for submitting that tender was 21.12.2009. One of the conditions to be satisfied was that the tenderer should offer a vehicle/vehicles with calibration certificate. Admittedly, the appellant/petitioner did not have such a certificate for the vehicle that he had offered, which is a new vehicle. He could obtain calibration certificate for that vehicle only by 4.2.2000. In the meanwhile, certain other operators had come to this Court and filed a writ petition, W.P.(C).No.36500 of 2009, contending among other things that the prescription of the tender conditions requiring the production of calibration certificate is unsustainable. There W.A.845/10 2 were forced to seek refuge before this Court in view of the fact that they wanted more time to produce the calibration certificate. This Court granted an interim order in that case directing the company to provisionally process the tenders without insisting on the production of calibration certificate, subject to the result of the writ petition. Ultimately, by Ext.P7 judgment dated 30.3.2010, that writ petition was dismissed sustaining the condition calling for the production of the calibration certificate. The learned Judge, however, granted a relief in favour of the beneficiaries of the aforesaid interim order, directing that having regard to the said interim order, their cases would be considered if they had produced the calibration certificates at a later point of time. It was also clarified in that judgment that the said direction would not be treated as a precedent but was intended only to do justice to the parties who had obtained an interim order, they having come to this Court by filing that writ petition. 2. The appellant/petitioner states that he is similar to the beneficiaries of that judgment in as much as, though he was not W.A.845/10 3 a party to that writ petition, the company had extended to him the benefit of the interim order granted in that case by treating him also eligible for being an authorised tanker truck operator on contract basis. He, accordingly says that the company should not, at a later point of time, turn round and weed him out from the field merely on the basis of Ext.P7 judgment. 3. The aforesaid situation does not create any legal right to be recognised by a court. The reason for this is that the interim order granted in discretionary jurisdiction while entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India was ultimately permitted to be enjoyed by the beneficiaries of that order to the extent that they would not be deprived of whatever they had obtained on the basis of that interim order. The equitable remedies and settlement of reliefs at final hearing as done by the learned Judge in Ext.P7 judgment does not give rise to any legal right for the petitioner to contend that he has to be treated at par with the petitioners in that case. Therefore, we do not find any illegality in the judgment impugned before us. The learned Judge, in the impugned judgment, has rightly followed W.A.845/10 4 the finding in Ext.P7 and has also deciphered the quality of Ext.P7 judgment correctly. With the aforesaid, we do not find any merit in the writ appeal. The same deserves to be dismissed. However, taking into consideration that the appellant/petitioner now stands exclusively on an action of the company, it is clarified that this and the impugned judgments will not stand in the way of the company extending any benefit to the petitioner independent of the finality of the impugned judgment and this appellate judgment. Subject to what is aforesaid, this writ appeal is dismissed. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN JUDGE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp W.A.845/10 5