JUDGMENT : With consent of the parties, hearing of the matters have been done through video conferencing and there is no complaint whatsoever regarding audio and visual quality. 2. Both the intra court appeals have been listed under the heading for Orders (with defect). 3. Perused the office note. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that defect, as pointed out by the office, shall be removed by tomorrow. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that subject to such undertaking, about removal of defect, both the appeals may be heard together today itself. 5. Learned counsel for the State as also private respondents do not raise any objection to such prayer. 6. Office has raised the issue of maintainability of the appeals vide Office Note dated 11.02.2022. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants, referring to provision as contained under Clause-V of ‘The Jharkhand High Court Case Flow Management in the High Court Rules, 2006,’ has submitted that Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) from the interlocutory orders of the learned Single Judge under original jurisdiction including writ can be filed. 8. Learned counsel for the State as also learned counsel for the private respondents-the successful bidder have not disputed the aforesaid legal position rather they have submitted that matter may be heard on merit. 9. Considering the aforesaid submissions, this Court is of the view that the instant appeals are maintainable. Since both the appeal arises out of the common order dated 02.02.2022 passed in W.P. (C) No. 260 of 2022 and W.P. (C) No. 309 of 2022, they are being heard together and are being disposed of at this stage itself. 10. The instant intra-court appeals have been preferred against interim order dated 02.02.2022 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 260 of 2022 and W.P. (C) No. 309 of 2022, whereby and whereunder the learned Single Judge refused to grant interim stay of further proceeding in respect of tender in question and disposed of Interlocutory Application being I.A. No. 671 of 2022 in W.P. (C) No. 260 of 2022 seeking interim relief and has held that the work awarded to the private respondents and letter of intent issued to them with respect to Notice Inviting Tender under e-Tender Reference No. PRO-01/2021-22 dated 17.11.2021 shall be subject to final outcome of the writ petitions. 11. 11. The brief facts, necessary for consideration of the lis, stand enumerated as hereunder: The Department of Women, Child Development and Social Security, Government of Jharkhand issued a notice inviting tender being e-Tender Reference No. PRO-01/2021-22 dated 17.11.2021 for the work of supply of Micronutrient Fortified and/or Energy Dense Food as supplementary nutrition for distribution under the Anganwadi Services Scheme of Umbrella ICDS through Anganwadi centres in the State of Jharkhand. The writ petitioners-appellants along with others submitted their bid together with requisite documents. But the writ petitioners-appellants were disqualified at the technical bid itself, as would be evident from proceeding of meeting dated 18.01.2022. Aggrieved thereof, the writ petitioners approached this Court by filing writ petitions along with Interlocutory Application(s) seeking interim relief. The learned writ Court, after hearing learned counsel for the writ petitioners, respondents-State as also private respondents-the successful bidder, on the point of interim relief, disposed of the impugned Interlocutory Application holding that the work awarded to the private respondents and the letters of intent issued to them with respect to Notice Inviting Tender under e-Tender Reference No. PRO-01/2021-22 dated 17.11.2021 issued by the Department of Women, Child Development and Social Security, Government of Jharkhand, shall be subject to the final outcome of the writ petitions, which is the subject matter of present intra-court appeals. 12. Mr. Mukul Rahatogi, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant in LPA No. 50 of 2022, and Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant in LPA No. 45 of 2022, referring to the reason of rejection of technical bid, have submitted that reason upon which the bids of the appellants have been rejected cannot be considered to be material non-compliance of the bid condition. It has further been submitted that though the learned Single Judge has applied its mind by referring to the argument advanced by the parties for passing an interim order, as would appear from interim order wherein the argument of the appellants, the State as also the private respondents-the successful bidder have been referred, but, no interim order of stay has been passed rather order has been passed holding that the letters of intent issued to private respondents with respect to tender in question shall be subject to final outcome of the writ petitions. According to learned counsel since specific prayer has been made in the Interlocutory Application for grant of stay during the entire process of tender but the work awarded to private respondents-the successful bidders and letter of intent have been made subject to final outcome of the writ petitions. It has further been submitted that learned Single Judge has posted the matter on 22nd March, 2022 and thereby did not consider the fact that in the meanwhile third party right will be created as also considering the nature of bid the writ petition will become infructuous once the letter of intent will be acted upon. 13. Mr. Sachin Kumar, learned A.A.G. II appearing for the State has submitted that since the learned Single Judge has applied his mind while passing the interim order in the writ petition, the learned Single Judge may be requested to dispose of the writ petitions itself within shortest possible time. 14. Mr. Kalyan Roy, learned counsel for the private respondents-the successful bidder, has agreed with the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the State and submits that he is having no objection if the appeals are disposed of with a request to the learned Single Judge to dispose of the writ petitions within shortest possible time. 15. Upon such submission, learned counsel for the appellants is having no objection. 16. This Court, considering the submissions advanced by the parties, is of the considered view that at this stage if any order would be passed going into the merit of the issue, it will be nothing but deciding the lis on merit, which according to our considered view will not be proper considering the fact that the matter is still to be decided on merit by the writ Court. 17. This Court, therefore, is of the considered view that the matter requires to be adjudicated by the learned Single Judge. 18. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge is requested to decide the issue on merit within shortest possible time preferably within a period of two weeks in accordance with law. 19. Learned counsel for the State as also private respondents undertake to file counter affidavit in the meanwhile, if any. 20. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant intra-court appeals stand disposed of. 21. Consequently, pending Interlocutory Application, if any, also stands disposed of.