JUDGMENT : 1. The present appeal is directed against the interlocutory order passed by the learned Single Judge in a pending W.P.No.100846/17, vacating the earlier exparte interim order dated 09.02.2017. 2. The present appellant-K. Jaganath Rao, the unsuccessful bidder, for the tender given for running of a Hotel/Restaurant at the premises of the respondents-NWKSRTC, Hubballi Bus Stand, has challenged the acceptance of bid of respondent No.3-Govind L. Kamath, who was the highest bidder and in the said writ petition on 09.02.2017 an exparte interim order was granted in favour of the petitioner. 3. On I.A.No.1/2017 filed by respondent No.3, the successful bidder, the said exparte interim order dated 09.02.2017 came to be vacated by the learned Single Judge by the impugned order dated 21.03.2017. The present appeal is directed against the said order dated 21.03.2017. 4. Mr. Subramanya Jois, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the appellant urged before us that the learned Single Judge has erred in vacating the exparte stay order on the ground of default in payment of the Security Deposit by the respondent No.3 within the stipulated time frame. The said security deposit was liable to be deposited by the respondent No.3 within six days of the acceptance of the highest bid vide communication dated 15.12.2016 (Annexure-C). However, the respondent No.3 is said to have deposited only Rs. 14 lakhs on 23.12.2016 and the balance amount of Rs. 26 lakhs on 03.01.2017 and on 03.01.2017 itself the respondent No.3 and the respondent No.1-NWKSRTC entered into the said Agreement for running of the said Restaurant at the premises of NWKSRTC. 5. Further, the learned counsel for the appellant urged that in case of delay in payment of the Security Deposit, the earlier deposit made by respondent No.3 was liable to be forfeited and there was no provision for extension of time by the respondents-NWKSRTC for delayed acceptance of the part of the Security Deposit on 03.01.2017. Hence, the impugned order dated 21.03.2017 vacating the earlier stay order dated 09.02.2017 deserves to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Prakash K. Jawalkar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 urged before us that in view of the Agreement having already been executed by the respondent No.1-NWKSRTC in favour of respondent No.3 on 03.01.2017, no interference in the impugned order of the learned Single Judge deserves to be made. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Prakash K. Jawalkar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 urged before us that in view of the Agreement having already been executed by the respondent No.1-NWKSRTC in favour of respondent No.3 on 03.01.2017, no interference in the impugned order of the learned Single Judge deserves to be made. He, further submitted that the period of Agreement in question was to commence only from 01.03.2017 which was after the deposit by respondent No.3 on 03.01.2017. He also urged that the consequence of rejection of the bid upon such delay in depositing of the security deposit is not provided for in the Tender conditions. 7. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge in view of the said Agreement already executed between the parties on 03.01.2017 has directed that the respondent No.3 shall not seek any equity on account of the same. Prima facie, there is no consequence of rejection of the bid provided for in the Tender document on account of delayed deposit of security deposit. Although the communication Annexure-C dated 15.12.2016 conveying the acceptance of the bid to respondent No.3 directs him to comply with all the conditions including the deposit of Security Deposit within seven days, but, in view of the fact that despite the delay in deposit of the part of the Security Deposit the Agreement stands executed between the parties and there being no consequence of rejection of the bid provided for, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, as we don't find any miscarriage of justice caused by that order. 8. Since the respective rights of the parties are still the subject matter of pending challenge before the learned Single Judge, we dispose of this intra court appeal, with a request to the learned Single Judge to decide the pending writ petition expeditiously, with an observation that not only respondent No.3 will not claim any equity on account of the execution of the said Agreement in his favour on 03.01.2017 but also on account of commencement of the business at the said place. The said execution of the Agreement as well as the commencement of the business shall remain subject to the final decision of the writ petition by the learned Single Judge. 9. The said execution of the Agreement as well as the commencement of the business shall remain subject to the final decision of the writ petition by the learned Single Judge. 9. We also make it clear that any of the observations made by us above may not influence the decision of the learned Single Judge on merits. With these observations, the appeal stands disposed of. In view of disposal of the appeal, all I.As. also stand disposed of, accordingly.