ORDER I.A.Nos.3538 and 3510 of 2014 Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant-Jharkhand Rajja Abhiyanta Padadhikari Samanway Samity and the applicant-Vidyut Diploma Abhiyanta Sangh and also learned counsel appearing for the State as well as learned counsel appearing for the Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited. 2. Before adverting to the submission advanced on behalf of the parties, background of the case becomes necessary to be noticed. After the decision was taken for unbundling of the erstwhile Jharkhand State Electricity Board, the Board issued notice inviting tender for appointment of distribution franchisee for Ranchi, Jamshedpur and Dhanbad. Pursuant to that, Direct Media Distribution Ventures Pvt. Ltd., Tata Power Supply Limited as well as Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation (CESC) submitted their bid papers. In the process of finalization of the matter relating to the aforesaid tender, Direct Media Distribution Ventures Pvt. Ltd was found to be non-responsive whereas other two aforesaid concerns were found to be responsive and thereby Tata Power Supply Limited entered into an agreement with the JSEB for distributing electricity in the area of Jamshedpur whereas CESC entered into an agreement for distributing electricity in the area of Ranchi. 3. Being aggrieved with the decision taken by the authority of JSEB, Direct Media Distribution Ventures Pvt. Ltd. and others filed a writ application bearing W.P.(C) No.5524 o 2012 challenging the decision of the authority to be mala fide. In the writ application, Tata Power Supply Limited as well as CESC were impleaded as respondents. In course of time, the Government having taken decision to cancel the tender referred the matter before the Board (now Jharkhand Biji Vitran Nigam Limited) for taking decision in the matter. Apprehending that the Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited would be taking decision in consequence of the decision taken by the State Government, one interlocutory application was filed by the Tata Power Supply Limited to the said writ application bearing W.P.(C) No.5524 of 2012 filed by the Direct Media Distribution Venture Pvt. Ltd. to restrain Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited from taking decision of annulling the earlier decision. However, that interlocutory application was rejected. 4. However, that interlocutory application was rejected. 4. On the other hand, CESC filed a separate writ application bearing W.P (C) No.3358 of 2014 challenging the said decision of the Government whereby the Government having taken decision to cancel the entire tender process had referred the matter before the Board (now Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited) for taking decision in the matter. In the said case, instant interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of the Jharkhand State Electricity Board's Engineers, Officers and employees coordination committee that is how the matter has come upon the Board. 5. Mr. V.P. Singh, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that in the year 2012, employees of the JSEB had gone on strike, cognizance of which was taken by this Court and thereby the Court on its own motion initiated a proceeding, vide W.P.(PIL) No.7239 of 2012. In the said case, the applicant intervened and submitted before the court that such situation when the association had taken a decision for going strike has arisen due to inaction of the authorities of the JSEB for not redressing the grievances of the employees. In that situation, an order was passed by the Court on 14.1.2013 in the said PIL applicant was asked to submit its representation relating to grievances so that the same be considered by the appropriate authority. 6. Pursuant to that, a detailed representation was submitted by the intervener before the Chairman, Jharkhand State Electricity Board as well as other authorities opposing the decision of the Government of appointing Tata Power Supply Limited and C.E.S.C as distribution franchisees for Jamshedpur and Ranchi respectively as the same is detrimental, not only to the interest of the JSEB but also to the state of Jharkhand. 7. It was further pointed out by Mr. Singh that not only the applicant but also Accountant General has raised objection over the manner in which they have been appointed as distribution franchisees. There the Accountant General did point out that the agreement entered into in between the aforesaid two companies and the JSEB is against the guideline of the CVC and thereby it was pointed out that it is against the interest of the State. 8. There the Accountant General did point out that the agreement entered into in between the aforesaid two companies and the JSEB is against the guideline of the CVC and thereby it was pointed out that it is against the interest of the State. 8. In that event, an interlocutory application has been filed for impleadment of the applicant as respondent so that respondent may place the case as to how the agreement entered into in between the Tata Power Supply Limited and the JSEB is illegal and as such, presence of the applicant would be very much required for adjudication of the issue and as such, the prayer made in the interlocutory application be allowed. 9. As against this, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that upon decision being taken for unbundling erstwhile JSEB, a NIT was issued by the JSEB. In response to that, the petitioner and also other respondent submitted their bids. In that process, the Board having found the petitioner to be responsive, entered into an agreement which agreement is now under threat of being terminated and thus, in the whole process of tender being awarded in favour of the petitioner and also in the decision if taken in future, the applicant has no role to play, though the applicant may be aggrieved with the decision of the Government for appointment of the petitioner as distribution franchisee. But for redressal of his grievance, this could not be the forum, though he may have other forum and as such, they are not entitled to be impleaded as respondent. 10. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is evident that CESC entered into an agreement for distributing electricity in the area of Ranchi. The decision of the JSEB for entering into an agreement with the CESC has been challenged by Direct Media Distribution Venture Pvt. Ltd. and others, vide W.P.(C) No.5524 of 2012, who was one of the participants to the tender but was found to be non-responsive. In the said writ application, the petitioner -CESC has also been impleaded as a party. The decision of the JSEB for entering into an agreement with the CESC has been challenged by Direct Media Distribution Venture Pvt. Ltd. and others, vide W.P.(C) No.5524 of 2012, who was one of the participants to the tender but was found to be non-responsive. In the said writ application, the petitioner -CESC has also been impleaded as a party. However, CESC has filed the present writ application as the agreement entered into in between the petitioner and the Board is under threat of its termination as according to the petitioner, the State Government having taken decision of cancelling entire tender process has referred the matter before the Board (now Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited) for taking decision in the matter. 11. Thus, the issue which is involved in the case is that whether there has been any justifiable reason on the part of the State Government for taking such decision and if such decision finds concurrence of the Board whether there would be any justifiable reason for the Board to cancel the agreement. 12. In that event, the applicant neither appears to be a necessary party nor a proper party as the relief sought for is never directed against the applicants nor their presence are required for adjudication of the issue which is involved in the case. 13. Accordingly, both the interlocutory applications stand rejected. Application rejected.