Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 754 (MP)

S. K. Sahani v. Union of India

2015-07-21

RAJENDRA MENON, SUSHIL KUMAR GUPTA

body2015
JUDGMENT 1. Exception in these appeals under section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalalya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 is sought to an interlocutory order dated 13.7.2015, passed by the writ Court in Writ Petition No.18798/2013 [Published in 2015 (II) MPWN 148 ] by which an interim order earlier granted on 7.7.2014 has been vacated. Similarly in Writ Appeal.No.423/2015, identical order passed in Writ Petition No.4617/2014 on the same date i.e. 13.7.2015 vacating an interim order earlier passed on 15.9.2014 is under challenge. As question of law and facts involved in both these appeals are identical in nature, we propose to deal with the matter by this common order. 2. The appellants have challenged the grant of catering contract to the private respondents so also the Catering Policy, 2010 in the original writ petitions and itis said that the catering policy is under challenge before the Supreme Court. Both the appellants herein who were granted licence to carry out the catering activities at Railway Stations Katni and Satna filed the writ petition and challenged the contract granted, they also moved interlocutory applications. Initially the learned writ Court granted the interim stay only on the ground that the catering policy is under challenge before the Supreme Court and interlocutory orders are passed by the Supreme Court, however, after interim order was passed, applications were filed for vacation of stay by the Railway administration and the application for vacation of interim orders having been allowed by the impugned order, these writ appeals have been filed under section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalalya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005. 3. Shri S.A. Dharmadhikari, appearing learned counsel for the appellants took us through the policy or stay granted by this Court on 7.7.2014 in Writ Petition No.18798/2013 and argued that the Supreme Court has granted stay which is still continued and therefore, the learned writ Court should not have interfered in the matter, as the policy in question which is challenged is sub judice before the Supreme Court. He further tried to indicate that the applications filed by the appellants for renewal of their lease are pending consideration, therefore, stay could not be vacated. 4. He further tried to indicate that the applications filed by the appellants for renewal of their lease are pending consideration, therefore, stay could not be vacated. 4. Shri Atul Choudhary, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the aforesaid and took us through the orders passed by the writ Court , the reasons given for vacation of stay and argued that by vacating the stay, no error has been committed and therefore, interference should not be made. He further argued that against an interlocutory order, an appeal under section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalalya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 is not maintainable. 5. We have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and we find that in both the cases, the writ Court was conscious of the fact that the policy of 2010 is under challenge before the Supreme Court. However, the writ Court found that merely because the policy is under challenge in the Supreme Court that itself is not a ground for granting stay or interim injunction in the matter of awarding contract. The learned writ Court applied the three principles applicable for granting injunction namely existence of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss and after taking note of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Laxmikant V.Patel v. Chetanbhai Shah and another [ (2002)3 SCC 65 ], found that neither the prima facie case nor balance of convenience or irreparable loss are existing in favour of theappellants and therefore, vacated the stay. In Writ Petition No.18798/2013 [ 2015(II) MPWN 148 ], the writ Court found that the licence granted to the appellant in the said case had expired in the year 2013 and there was no renewal of the licence for running the catering service in the Railway station in question. The writ Court further found that once the licence has expired and in the absence of its further renewal in accordance to law no right exists for the contractor to carry out the catering activities. That apart it was found that the Railway administration has received an offer from M/s A.S. Sales Corporation to the tune of Rs.28,11,000/- and the appellant in Writ Aappeal No.424/2015 is only paying Rs.2,54,544/- as licence fee. That apart it was found that the Railway administration has received an offer from M/s A.S. Sales Corporation to the tune of Rs.28,11,000/- and the appellant in Writ Aappeal No.424/2015 is only paying Rs.2,54,544/- as licence fee. Accordingly, it was held by the writ Court that the Railway administration by virtue of the interim order granted by this Court suffers to loss of Rs.28,11,000/- per annum. Taking note of all the aforesaid, it was held that there is irreparable loss to the Railway administration and not to the appellants. That apart it was found that once a catering licence of contractor is over and he is not entitled to carry out the catering activities in the Railway station, therefore, balance of convenience is not in favour of the licencee. Similarly in Writ Petition No.4617/2014 also the writ Court found that the Railway has to suffer a loss of more than Rs.8,63,101/- per annum. The licence of the contractor has expired in the year 2013 and after analyzing the applicability of principles of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss has recorded a finding to say that none of the principles governing grant of stay are available in favour of the appellants and therefore, vacated the stay. In doing so, we are of the considered view that no error has been committed by the writ Court warranting reconsideration, that also when the writ petition on merit is pending consideration. That apart certain interim orders passed by the Indore Bench were referred to by Shri S.A.Dharmadhikar, learned counsel for the appellants to say that the Indore Bench has granted the stay. We have gone through the orders and find that Indore Bench while granting stay has not adverted to consider the legal question in the backdrop of the principles as detailed hereinabove as considered by the writ Court in these cases. That apart interim or interlocutory orders without any specific reason are not binding precedents. 6. Accordingly, finding no ground to interfere, both these appeals stand dismissed.