JUDGMENT : Harsha Devani, J. 1. Rule. Mr. Tirthraj Pandya, learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the first respondent – Regional Commissioner of Municipalities and Mr. Kishan Y. Dave, learned advocate, waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent No.2 – Amreli Municipality. 2. Having regard to the controversy involved in the present case which lies in a very narrow compass, the matter is taken up for final hearing today. 3. By this petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the ex-parte order dated 14.11.2019 passed by the second respondent municipality directing it to keep in mind the instructions dated 14.11.2019 and not carry out any activities or incur any expenses at site; as well as the ex-parte instructions dated 14.11.2019 issued by the first respondent – Regional Commissioner of Municipalities to the Chief Officer of the second respondent municipality directing him to comply with the earlier order dated 5.11.2019, failing which disciplinary action would be taken against the office bearers/officers under the relevant statutory provisions. 4. The facts stated briefly are that the second respondent - Amreli Municipality invited tenders for five different works and public advertisement was issued in the daily newspaper dated 08.09.2019. The present case relates to the tender issued by the second respondent – item No.1 for construction of cement concrete road, the approximate cost whereof was Rs.646.85 lakhs while item No.2 for construction of cement concrete road the approximate price whereof was Rs.608.94 lakhs. During the course of the tender process, in all seven bids were received by the second respondent - municipality out of which, three bids were considered and the bid of the petitioner being the lowest, the tenders for the above referred items No.1 and 2 came to be awarded to the petitioner. 5. Vide order dated 14.10.2019, work order came to be issued in favour of the petitioner for the above referred two tenders. However, two of the tenderers, namely Hindustan Projects and Jay Corporation, addressed representations to the second respondent municipality endorsing a copy thereof to the office of the Regional Commissioner of Municipalities, Bhavnagar, alleging various irregularities in connection with their respective disqualification by the respondent municipality. Pursuant to the representations/complaint received by the first respondent, explanation was called for from the second respondent municipality along with necessary documents. 6. Pursuant to the representations/complaint received by the first respondent, explanation was called for from the second respondent municipality along with necessary documents. 6. One of the aggrieved tenderers, namely Jay Corporation, had instituted two writ petitions being Special Civil Applications No.19464 of 2019 and 19465 of 2019 before this court, challenging its disqualification by the respondent municipality. On the said petition, this court issued notice on 25.10.2019, making it returnable on 27.11.2019. By an order dated 05.11.2019, the first respondent Commissioner observed that due procedure had not been followed by the second respondent - municipality during the course of the online tender process and directed it that tenders of all agencies which had uploaded the tender all the necessary and genuine documents in electric format, be opened and proceedings be taken in that regard. Pursuant thereto, the second respondent municipality addressed a communication dated 07.11.2019 to the office of the first respondent – Regional Commissioner of Municipalities, asking for specific and clear opinion and further instructions in view of the pendency of the writ petitions before this court. However, the Regional Commissioner of Municipalities issued mandatory instructions dated 14.11.2019, directing the respondent municipality to proceed further and consider all the tenderers as qualified in view of the standing Government instructions and guidelines, opining that since the High Court had not restrained any further activities it would not affect the subjudice matter before the court. Pursuant thereto, the second respondent - Amreli Municipality issued the impugned order dated 14.11.2019 communicating to the petitioner agency not to proceed further pursuant to the work order dated 14.10.2019 issued to it in view of the instructions issued by the office of the Regional Commissioner. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present petition. 7. Mr. Gautam Joshi, Senior Advocate, learned counsel with Mr. Shirish Gohil and Ms. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present petition. 7. Mr. Gautam Joshi, Senior Advocate, learned counsel with Mr. Shirish Gohil and Ms. Kitty Mehta, learned advocates for the petitioner, assailed the impugned orders by submitting that the same have been passed in breach of the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as, though the tender in question had been awarded to the petitioner, without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the first respondent - Regional Commissioner of Municipalities has directed the second respondent - municipality that tenders of all agencies which had uploaded the tender with all the necessary and genuine documents in electric format, be opened and proceedings be taken in that regard and that in compliance of the said order, the second – respondent municipality had directed the petitioner not to proceed further pursuant to the work order. It was submitted that both the impugned orders have been passed in breach of the principles of natural justice and therefore, deserve to be quashed and set aside on this ground alone. 7.1 Next it was submitted that one of the parties who had made a representation to the respondents namely Jay Corporation, Mehsana had filed two writ petitions before this court, challenging its disqualification. It was submitted that the court had issued notice in the said proceedings and the matter was sub-judice. Therefore, once the party had already approached this court and this court had taken cognizance of the grievance voiced therein, the action of the respondents of passing the impugned order amounts to overreaching the process of the court and needs to be deprecated. 7.2 It was, accordingly, urged that the petition deserves to be allowed by setting aside the impugned orders. 8. Mr. H. M. Parikh, Senior Advocate, learned counsel with Mr. Kishan Dave, learned advocate for the second respondent - municipality submitted that the municipality had followed due procedure in accordance with law during the course of the tender process. It was submitted that the municipality had duly invited the attention of the first respondent – Regional Commissioner of Municipalities to the pendency of the writ petitions before this court in relation to the grievance raised by Jay Corporation, and the fact that any intervention at this stage would amount to overreaching the process of court. It was submitted that the municipality had duly invited the attention of the first respondent – Regional Commissioner of Municipalities to the pendency of the writ petitions before this court in relation to the grievance raised by Jay Corporation, and the fact that any intervention at this stage would amount to overreaching the process of court. However, despite the same, the Regional Commissioner of Municipalities, by the impugned communication dated 14.11.2019, has directed the second respondent municipality to abide by the directions issued by him, failing which, disciplinary action would be taken against the office bearers/officers of the municipality under the relevant provisions of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules and the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 and hence, the Chief Officer had no option but to abide by the directions issued by the first respondent and pass the impugned order dated 14.11.2019 calling upon the petitioner not to proceed further with the work order. It was, accordingly, urged that insofar as the impugned order dated 14.11.2019 passed by the second respondent - municipality is concerned, the same is only consequential to the order dated 14.11.2019 passed by the first respondent - Regional Commissioner of Municipalities. 9. Mr. Tirthraj Pandya, learned Assistant Government Pleader, invited the attention of the court to the averments made in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the first respondent - Regional Commissioner of Municipalities to submit that it was in the light of the grievances raised by two tenderers namely Hindustan Projects and Jay Corporation through their representations dated 14.10.2019 alleging that the second respondent municipality had committed grave irregularities and illegalities in the tender process, that the first respondent had considered the representation and taken action in respect thereof. It was submitted that the tender committee of the second respondent municipality had violated the tender manual procedure at the time of opening e-tenders for the said work, and hence, for the purpose of giving a fair chance to all the eligible bidders, it was necessary to instruct the second respondent to open tenders of all the eligible bidders who had submitted all necessary documents online as per the provisions of the Government Resolutions dated 18.01.2008 and 27.11.2008. It was submitted that it is for this reason, that the letter dated 05.11.2019 and 14.11.2019 were written by the first respondent directing the second respondent to comply with the same, and that such instructions would also improve the financial condition of the second respondent - municipality. It was submitted that a perusal of the work order and the agreement of the said work, shows that the work order was issued in haste to give undue benefit to a particular party, which shows the mala fide intention of the second respondent - municipality. It was submitted that the second respondent had issued a letter to the petitioner for security deposit and agreement on 14.10.2019, and on the very same date the work order came to be issued, without signing the agreement, despite the fact that generally the agreement is signed first and the work order is issued thereafter. Therefore, with a view to rectify the irregularities committed by the second respondent, it was instructed to open all the eligible tenders uploaded online. 9.1 Attention was invited to averments made in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the affidavit-in-reply of the first respondent wherein it has been stated thus:- “9. It is submitted that from a bare perusal of the report submitted by respondent no.2 – Municipality, it transpired that the tendering procedure undertaken by respondent no.2 was not in consonance with the Government guidelines for online tendering and therefore, respondent no.1 vide letter dated 05.11.2019 intimated respondent no.2-Municipality to carry out tendering procedure as per the prescribed rules and guidelines. Such letter dated 05.11.2019 is already produced by the petitioner alongwith the present petition. The tenure of the letter dated 05.11.2019 reflects that respondent no.2-Municipality failed to follow the rules and guidelines stipulated under Government Resolutions dated 18.01.2008 and 27.11.2008. Copies of such Government Resolutions dated 18.01.2008 and 27.11.2008 are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-R4 (Colly.). It is stated that vide letter dated 07.11.2019, the respondent no.2-Municipality informed the office of the respondent no.1 about filing of Special Civil Application No.19464 of 2019 and Special Civil Application No.19465 of 2019 filed by Jay Corporation. The said letter also indicated that the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat has not granted any interim relief in those two petitions. It is stated that vide letter dated 07.11.2019, the respondent no.2-Municipality informed the office of the respondent no.1 about filing of Special Civil Application No.19464 of 2019 and Special Civil Application No.19465 of 2019 filed by Jay Corporation. The said letter also indicated that the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat has not granted any interim relief in those two petitions. Respondent no.2 – Municipality also indicated that they have sought legal opinion from their Legal Advisor seeking legal guidelines for the opening of tenders since the issue is subjudice. A copy of such letter dated 07.11.2019 issued by the respondent no.2 – Municipality is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-R5. 10. It is submitted that respondent no.1 vide impugned letter dated 14.11.2019 observed that the cause of litigation has arose due to irregularities committed by the respondent no.2 – Municipality and also directed the respondent no.2 – Municipality to hold tendering process as per rules and guidelines while categorically mentioning that the entire tender proceeding shall be subject to final outcome of the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court in the pending petitions.” 9.2 It was urged that in view of the illegalities and irregularities committed by the second respondent - municipality, the first respondent directed the second respondent to follow the tendering process in terms of the rules and guidelines, by categorically mentioning that the entire tender process shall be subject to the final outcome of the orders that may be passed by the High Court in the pending proceedings. It was submitted that the first respondent was exercising powers under section 258 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 which permit the Collector to suspend execution of orders passed by the municipalities. It was, accordingly, urged that the impugned order passed by the first respondent is just, legal and proper and does not warrant any interference by this court. 10. The facts as emerging from the record reveal that in connection with disqualification from the tender process, one of the tenderers namely Jay Corporation, had approached this court by invoking its writ jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India by way of two writ petitions being Special Civil Applications No.19464 of 2019 and 19465 of 2019, wherein the court had issued notice on 25.10.2019 making it returnable on 27.11.2019. Jay Corporation had also issued a statutory notice dated 14.10.2019 to the second respondent – municipality alleging that the Tender Screening and Evaluating Committee of its office had disqualified it without scrutiny of the documents submitted by it as per pre-qualification criteria required for eligibility to fix the L-1 tender. It is also alleged that the Tender Screening and Evaluating Committee has intentionally disqualified the petitioner with a mala fide intention to award the aforesaid tender to its pre-known, familiar agency to create wide chances of corruption through the pre-known agency. It is further stated that it has requested the Tender Screening and Evaluating Committee to open its price bid on top priority basis or else it would be constrained to file appeal or writ petition before the High Court of Gujarat. A copy of the said statutory notice is also endorsed to the first respondent as well as other authorities. One of the tenderers, namely, Hindustan Project, had written a representation dated 14.10.2019 to the second respondent – municipality alleging that the tender notice did not meet with the procedure provided therefor. A copy of the said letter was endorsed to the first respondent as well as to some other authorities. Thus, the above statutory notice and representation were addressed to the second respondent – municipality and only a copy thereof was endorsed to the first respondent – Regional Commissioner of Municipalities. 11. Upon receipt of the representation dated 14.10.2019 of Hindustan Project, the first respondent by a communication dated 15.10.2019, called upon the second respondent to furnish a detailed explanation in connection with the irregularities/illegalities alleged in the said representation. By a communication dated 23.10.2019, the first respondent called for a detailed explanation from the second respondent as regards the irregularities/ illegalities alleged in the application dated 14.10.2019 made by Jay Corporation. On 23.10.2019, the second respondent – municipality tendered a detailed explanation in connection with the statutory notice dated 14.10.2019 issued by Jay Corporation. 12. In the meanwhile, Jay Corporation filed two writ petitions before this court in connection with the rejection of its two tenders, both arising from the same tender process. Since the said writ petitions were listed for hearing on the same day, on a perusal of the record of those writ petitions, it was found that on 25.10.2019 this court issued notice in both the petitions, making it returnable on 27.11.2019. Since the said writ petitions were listed for hearing on the same day, on a perusal of the record of those writ petitions, it was found that on 25.10.2019 this court issued notice in both the petitions, making it returnable on 27.11.2019. It may be noted that this court did not deem it fit to grant any ad-interim or interim relief at that stage. On 27.11.2019, the learned advocate for the petitioner sought time to file rejoinder and hence, the matters were adjourned to 19.12.2019. 13. During the pendency of the aforesaid writ petitions, the first respondent, on 5.11.2019 passed a detailed order in connection with the representation made by Hindustan Project and the statutory notice issued by Jay Corporation, the letter dated 23.10.2019 of the said office and the reply dated 23.10.2019 of the second respondent, stating that as per Circular dated 18.1.2018 of the Roads & Building Department of the State Government, tenders are required to be uploaded in electronic format and upon furnishing such details the tender fee as well as tender will be deemed to have been received and accordingly, the tender shall be opened. That procedure is required to be followed in terms of Circular dated 27.11.2008, whereby it is provided that “S.E at the time of tender opening or send the same through R.P.A.D so as to reach E.E. Division – Within 7 days from the last date of opening”, which does not appear to have been followed and held that the tenders of all agencies which had been uploaded in electronic format with all the necessary and genuine documents were eligible to be opened, and directed the second respondent – municipality to follow such procedure failing which responsibility of all the office bearers/officers who were present in the Tender Committee shall be determined. 14. In response to the aforesaid order dated 5.11.2019, the second respondent – municipality informed that Jay Corporation had filed two writ petitions before this court being Special Civil Application No.19464/2019 and 19465/2019 wherein this court has issued notice on 25.10.2019 and has kept the hearing on 27.11.2019, that since the Government and the first respondent have not been impleaded as parties, it is natural that the first respondent may not be aware of the same. It is further stated that in connection with all the allegations made by Jay Corporation, the High Court has issued notice and kept the matter for hearing on 27.11.2019. It is further, inter alia stated that the second respondent is of the humble opinion that since the matter is sub-judice if the directions issued by the first respondent by the letter dated 5.11.2019 are implemented it may amount to disrespect of the High Court and possibility of there being legal complications cannot be ruled out, which may be kept in mind. It is further stated that however, if the first respondent issues any guidelines – order – instructions for compliance, the Amreli Municipality shall strictly comply with the same. It is further stated therein that the legal advisor of the municipality has advised that the till the High Court finally decides the proceedings before it, no action should be taken in respect of the tender proceedings. 15. Thereafter, the first respondent – Regional Commissioner of Municipalities, by the impugned order dated 14.11.2019, observed that in connection with the tendering process not having been followed in accordance with the rules, Jay Corporation had at the first instance addressed a letter to the municipality and a copy thereof was endorsed to his office. The writ petitions filed by Jay Corporation have occasioned on account of the second respondent not having followed due procedure in accordance with law. In this regard, if the Amreli Municipality carries out the proceedings in accordance with the rules or completes it in accordance with the rules, then in the petitions filed by Jay Corporation before the High Court, the High Court has not prohibited taking any such action, keeping which in mind, no question appears to arise of disregarding any legal process or breach of the relief claimed or any other rules. Despite which, the decision that may be given by the Gujarat High Court in connection with the said tendering process shall be binding on all the parties which may be taken into consideration and that the said office by its letter dated 5.11.2019 has informed the municipality that the tender process has been carried out without keeping in mind the Circulars and rules in relation to online tendering and that the incomplete procedure be carried out in accordance with law and be completed accordingly, which may be taken serious note of. The second respondent has once again been cautioned and instructed to conduct the tendering process in accordance with the rules and to send a report of the said proceedings to that office. If that is not done, the entire responsibility in connection with the said matter shall be of the office bearer/officer who does not comply with the instructions of the said office and that he would be constrained to take action against them under the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963/Gujarat Civil Services (Conduct and Appeal) Rules. 16. In compliance with the above order dated 14.11.2019 of the first respondent, the second respondent – municipality passed the impugned order dated 14.11.2019, directing the petitioner not to proceed further with the work. 17. Thus, one of the tenderers viz., Jay Corporation who had issued statutory notice to the second respondent, has filed Special Civil Applications No.19464 of 2019 and 19465 of 2019 before this court calling in question its disqualification by the second respondent municipality in the very same tender process. This court has issued notice in the matter and hence, the matter was sub-judice before this court and it would be this court which would consider the validity of the action of the second respondent municipality in disqualifying the said petitioner. While it is true that Jay Corporation had also endorsed a copy of the statutory notice made to the second respondent municipality to the first respondent Regional Commissioner of Municipalities, pursuant to which the first respondent has called for an explanation from the second respondent and had issued the letter dated 5.11.2019 to the second respondent directing it consider all the tenders that are uploaded in electronic format with the necessary details and genuine documents, to be eligible and open all those tenders, once, the first respondent had received that communication dated 07.11.2019 of the second respondent - municipality stating that the matter is pending consideration by the Gujarat High Court and is sub-judice before it and that the municipality is of the opinion that in the sub-judice matter, if the communication dated 05.11.2019 of the first respondent is implemented, it may amount to disrespect of the Gujarat High Court and may give rise to complicated questions of law, the first respondent ought to have stayed his hands and waited for the outcome of the petitions before the High Court. However, a perusal of the xerox copy of the communication dated 07.11.2019, which has been produced on record along with the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the second respondent, shows that the first respondent has made an endorsement on the said communication to the effect that the municipality be informed that by opening the tender in accordance with the rules, it is possible that the matter before the High Court would also be disposed of; and thereafter, by the impugned letter dated 14.11.2019, the first respondent has proceeded to direct the second respondent municipality to take action in accordance with the directions issued by him vide the letter dated 05.11.2019, failing which, disciplinary action would be taken against all concerned; due to which, left with no option, second respondent municipality, by the impugned order dated 14.11.2019, directed the petitioner not to proceed further with the work order. 18. Thus, though the municipality had placed the legal opinion of the consultant before the first respondent that passing any orders when the matter is sub-judice before the High Court may amount to disrespect of the High Court, the first respondent thought himself to be wiser and has opined that if the tender is opened in accordance with the rules the matter before the High Court may also stand disposed of. What the first respondent has overlooked is that the tender has already been awarded in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner was therefore an affected party. However, without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the first respondent – Regional Commissioner of Municipalities has directed the second respondent municipality to consider all the tenders which had been uploaded online with the necessary and genuine documents as eligible and open them. Thus, apart from overreaching the process of this court, by interfering in a matter wherein the subject matter before him and the subject matter before the High Court is the same, such action on the part of the Regional Commissioner of Municipalities, is clearly in breach of the principles of natural justice and instead of bringing an end to the litigation pending before this court, has given rise to another litigation and has burdened this court with yet one more litigation. 19. 19. In the considered opinion of this court, once the matter was pending before this court and was sub-judice, the first respondent Regional Commissioner of Municipalities ought to have stayed his hands and could not have entered into the merits of a dispute which was already subject matter before this court. Till the date when he issued the communication dated 05.11.2019, it appears that the first respondent - Regional Commissioner of Municipalities was not aware of the writ petitions filed by Jay Corporation before this court, however, once this fact was brought to his notice, the first respondent ought to have waited till the outcome of the petitions. However, despite the fact regarding the pendency of the petitions was brought to his notice and the second respondent – municipality had clearly opined that complying with the order dated 05.11.2019 may amount to disrespect of the High Court and informing the first respondent that the legal advisor of the municipality had opined that till the High Court finally decides the proceedings before it, no action should be taken in respect of the tender proceedings; the first respondent, firstly made an endorsement on the letter of the municipality that the municipality be informed that if the tenders are opened in accordance with the rules the matter before the High Court may be disposed of; and thereafter directed the municipality to comply with his instructions dated 05.11.2019 failing which disciplinary action would be initiated against all office bearers/officers concerned, and compelled the second respondent – municipality to issue the impugned letter dated 14.11.2019 though the matter was sub-judice. By such action, the first respondent – Regional Commissioner of Municipality has not only himself overreached the process of the court, but also compelled the second respondent to do so under threat of disciplinary action. 20. It is settled legal position that a party cannot avail of any remedy in respect of the same cause of action before two different forums. Therefore, once the party namely Jay Corporation had already chosen to avail the remedy before this court by invoking its writ jurisdiction and this court had entertained the petition, the Regional Commissioner of Municipalities, had no authority to thereafter enter into the merits of the case and pass any orders in a matter which was sub-judice before this court. Therefore, once the party namely Jay Corporation had already chosen to avail the remedy before this court by invoking its writ jurisdiction and this court had entertained the petition, the Regional Commissioner of Municipalities, had no authority to thereafter enter into the merits of the case and pass any orders in a matter which was sub-judice before this court. Besides, Jay Corporation had issued a statutory notice to the second respondent – municipality and only endorsed a copy to the first respondent and had not filed any application before the first respondent. Therefore, when pursuant to the statutory notice issued by it Jay Corporation had instituted proceedings in connection with such notice before this court, the first respondent had no authority to thereafter deal with the matter. The impugned communication dated 14.11.2019 passed by the first respondent, therefore amounts to overreaching the process of this court, and is also in breach of the principles of natural justice as the petitioner who is an affected party has not been heard, and hence, cannot be sustained. The impugned order dated 14.11.2019 passed by the second respondent municipality being consequential to the order dated 14.11.2019, passed by the first respondent also cannot be sustained. 21. For the foregoing reasons, the petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The impugned orders dated 14.11.2019 passed by the first respondent – Regional Commissioner of Municipalities as well as second respondent – Amreli Municipality are hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute accordingly. 22. Since the petition has been occasioned on account of the action of the first respondent in overreaching the process of the court by passing orders in a sub-judice matter despite the pendency of the petitions having brought to his notice and he being informed that it may amount to disrespect of the High Court, the first respondent shall pay costs of Rs.1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh).