Case: RAJASTHAN STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION Vs. STAR AGRIWAREHOUSING AND COLLATERAL MANAGEMENT LIMITED &amp; ORS

Certain queries were raised by the writ petitioners before the High Court (respondents herein) in respect of clause 5(5)(i) of the notice inviting bid. Such clause reads as under:The bidder (either directly or through its 100% owned subsidiary) should have experience in preservation, maintenance and storage of not less than 4.00 Lac MT on an average basis for last 3 Financial years (i.e.: 2016- 17 to 2018-19) of MSP procured food grain, pulses, oil seeds etc. of Central/state government agencies at par with CWC/SWC/FCI/NAFED etc. in any state/union territory across India.. There was pre-bid conference and thereafter certain clarifications/ amendments were issued. The Clause 5(5)(i) was retained as such. The writ petitions were filed challenging the tender conditions and the clarification issued. Such writ petitions were dismissed by the learned Single Bench of the High Court on 19th May, 2020. It was on 20th May, 2020, technical bids were opened and the appellants in Civil Appeals arising out of Special Leave Petitions (Civil) Nos. 7834-7839 of 2020 and Special Leave Petitions (Civil) Nos. 7935- 7936 of 2020 were found to be successful bidders. A letter of intent was issued on 21st May, 2020. In an intra-court appeal, the High Court passed the following order:D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 362/2020, D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 364/2020 & D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 372/2020:Copies of the appeals be served on the Counsel for the intervener through email. Reply affidavit, if any, be filed on or before 05.06.2020 and be exchanged by the parties.List on 10.06.2020.In the meantime, status-quo as on date shall be maintained till the next date. Other formalities may proceed, but the contract shall not be signed without leave of this Court.4. The High Court maintained the above interim order on 10th June, 2020. The order reads as under:Mr. Pankaj Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that he has complied with the order dated29.05.2020 and filed the amended cause titles in the Registry last evening.Registry to verify and act accordingly.He also submits that he has served copies thereof through E-Mail sent by the AOR.Learned Counsel submits that the pleadings in the matter are complete and seek urgent disposal of the matter.Accordingly, the matters stand adjourned to 06.07.2020 for final disposal. Interim order dated 29.05.2020 shall continue till then.In the meanwhile defect(s) as pointed out by the Registry, be removed.

Court's reasoning:
8. We do not find any merit in the argument that the Special Leave Petitions are directed against an interim order, therefore, this Court should not interfere in the order passed. Though this Court does not generally interfere in an interim order passed in an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution but when after the dismissal of the writ petition, the Division Bench has passed an order of stay without recording any reason affecting revenue of the State, this Court cannot not permit the public interest to suffer. This Court in Nitco Tiles Ltd. v. Gujarat Ceramic Floor Tiles Mfg. Assn. (2005) 12 SCC 454     held as under:-7. We are also aware of the well-established principle that this Court normally does not interfere either with a courts decision not to relegate a writ petitioner to an alternative remedy or with the grant of interim relief. It is unnecessary to cite any authority in support of this as the proposition cannot admit of any controversy. However, having regard to the singular lack of any acceptable reason in the impugned order we have no hesitation in interfering with this particular exercise of discretion by the High Court and set aside the same.10. Since the matters are pending for final determination before the High Court, we refrain from making any comment upon the merits of the arguments raised by the parties. The fact remains that once the bidding process is complete, the appellant is entitled to take work from the successful bidders rather than taking work from the short-term tenderers who were granted contract in exigency of the situation. In the matters of contract, the grant of interim order to restrain the successful bidders from executing the contract is not in public interest, more so, when the tender is for storage of food articles in the warehouses of the State Government undertaking.11. Therefore, we find that the grant of interim order which impinges upon the grant of contract by the appellant is not in public interest that too without recording any reasons when the Writ Petition was dismissed by the Learned Single Judge.