Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 971 (GUJ)

SURYASE ENERGY v. MADHYA GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD.

2022-08-22

ARAVIND KUMAR, ASHUTOSH J.SHASTRI

body2022
JUDGMENT : ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI, J. 1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners have prayed for following reliefs: “15. (a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the respondent to consider the tender application of the petitioners (at Annexure B) by directing the respondent to consider the tender bid of the petitioners in time. (b) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondent MGVCL to accept the technical bid of the petitioner; and further be pleased to direct the respondent to consider the physical copy of the tender received by MGVCL through India Post on 03.06.2022 in time. (c) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the writ petition the Hon'ble Court be pleased to stay the tender process of the tender dated 09.02.2022 being Tender No. MGVCL/DSM/EOV/SRT/2021-22/2137 for Design, supply, erection, testing and commissioning including warranty, Comprehensive operation & maintenance of Grid - Connected Rooftop Solar Plant of various capacities under the Phase-II of Grid Connected Rooftop Solar Scheme of MNRE/SURYA Gujarat Scheme in the State Gujarat during the Year (2021-22) for Residential Consumers in Urban Area. (d) Be pleased to quash and set-aside the condition of physical submission of tender copy by 02.06.2022 in the corrigendum XI dated 30.05.2022. (e) Be pleased to quash and set-aside the rejection communication by the respondent MGVCL (at Annexure E). (f) Pass such further and other order as the nature and Circumstances of the case may require.” 2. The case of the petitioners is that respondent No. 1 invited tender for Design, supply, erection, testing and commissioning including warranty, Comprehensive operation & maintenance of Grid - Connected Rooftop Solar Plant of various capacities under Phase-II of Grid Connected Rooftop Solar Scheme of MNRE/SURYA Gujarat Scheme in the State during the Year 2021-22 for Residential Consumers in Urban Area, being Tender No: EOV No. MGVCL/DSM/EOV/SRT/2021-22/2137 on 09.02.2022. Pursuant to such tender notice, since the petitioners are registered firms, they filled-in their respective Bids. Subsequently, the respondent-authority issued certain corrigendums extending the date for submission of Bids online as well as off-line from time to time. By detailing out in paragraph No. 6, in the form of Chart, the respective dates have been mentioned by virtue of which, the petitioners have submitted their respective Bids. Subsequently, the respondent-authority issued certain corrigendums extending the date for submission of Bids online as well as off-line from time to time. By detailing out in paragraph No. 6, in the form of Chart, the respective dates have been mentioned by virtue of which, the petitioners have submitted their respective Bids. The said Chart reads as under: S. No. Name of petitioner Date of online submissions Date of speed post/RPAD Date of delivery of Speed Post/RPAD 1. Suryase Energy 30.05.2022 31.05.2022 03.06.2022 2. Solarmax Energy Pvt. Ltd. 31.05.2022 01.06.2022 03.06.2022 3. Upvoltage Solutions LLP 30.05.2022 02.06.2022 03.06.2022 4. Green Solar Energy 03.06.2022 04.06.2022 due dated was 08.06.2022 Return on 03.06.2022 due to fault of India post 5. The Solar House 30.05.2022 01.06.2022 03.06.2022 6. Tulsikamal Energy 31.05.2022 01.06.2022 03.06.2022 7. Vision Infosys 31.05.2022 01.06.2022 03.06.2022 2.1 According to the petitioners, the requirement of MGVCL was to send physical copy of documents only through RPAD or Speed Post from Government Postal Department. The petitioner No. 3 after submitting online Bid tried to contact several branches including the main branch of Indian Post in Ahmedabad to ensure that post reaches the office of MGVCL by 02.06.2022 and later on, as advised by several branch offices of Indian Post, the petitioner No. 3 had personally went to Vadodara in the main branch for same day delivery but despite that, the post had reached the respondent on 03.06.2022. Petitioners have further asserted that in all previous corrigendums, the general time limit for submission of physical documents through RPAD was three days or four days but in the last corrigendum; the said time limit was curtailed to two working days only and Speed Posts are not delivering in such time. It has been submitted that if the private courier services were permitted for sending the documents, the same would have been delivered on time and as such said part of the condition being arbitrary and irrational, same is liable to be quashed. It has been submitted that if the private courier services were permitted for sending the documents, the same would have been delivered on time and as such said part of the condition being arbitrary and irrational, same is liable to be quashed. It is contended that physical copy of documents submitted by petitioners having not reached the respondent's office by 02.06.2022 in an arbitrary manner without realizing the aforesaid situation respondent authority has not accepted the Bid of the petitioners only on said count namely documents having not reached before 02.06.2022 and hence, on account of such condition petitioners could not participate further in the tender process and as such left with no other alternative, petitioners are constrained to approach this Court by way of present petition for the reliefs as claimed hereinabove and aggrieved by that part of the condition in the tender document of corrigendum 9 dated 30.05.2022, petitioners have prayed for their Bids being processed for further consideration. 3. The petition originally came up for consideration on 20.06.2022, on which date, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent-authority had requested for time to file the affidavit-in-reply and as such, matter was directed to be filed on 27.06.2022 and reply affidavit having been filed, the learned advocates appearing for both parties have requested the Court to take up the matter for hearing and accordingly, we have heard the matter. 4. Mr. Sudhanshu A. Jha, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners has vehemently contended that condition contained in the tender documents itself is arbitrary and same being not reasonable it is liable to be quashed. Insistence by the authority to send through Indian Post only is also an arbitrary clause which requires to be declared as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It has been contended that to grant two days for physical copy to reach respondent authority that too by Indian Post would be an arbitrary clause, unfair, irrational and depriving the most eligible persons to participate in the Bid process. It has also been contended that corrigendum which has been issued giving practically two days only for forwarding physical copies of documents does not appeal to logic. It has also been contended that corrigendum which has been issued giving practically two days only for forwarding physical copies of documents does not appeal to logic. By prescribing such limited days in corrigendum 9 is practically depriving the petitioners from participating in tender process though and there must be reasonable gap between online and physical submission of the relevant documents and in the absence of reasonable time being granted, the action on the part of respondent-authority is not only unjust and arbitrary but also unreasonable, irrational which violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It has been submitted by Mr. Jha, the learned advocate that though attempts were made to see that the physical copies be made available to the authority well in time but on account of private couriers not being permitted and Indian Post was not in a position to deliver despite various attempts by the petitioners ultimately could send only on 02.06.2022 which had reached the respondent authority after the due date resultantly Bids of the petitioners were not accepted. This action on the part of authority being unjust and arbitrary learned counsel for petitioners has prayed for quashing and setting aside the condition stipulated under corrigendum dated 30.05.2022 and has prayed for grant of reliefs as specified in the petition in the interest of justice. 4.1 With a view to substantiate his submission, Mr. Jha, learned advocate has drawn our attention to the averments made in the petition but has candidly submitted that the MGVCL has received physical copy through Indian Post only on 03.06.2022 i.e. after due date and as such has submitted that respondent authority be directed to accept the petitioners' Bid received on 03.06.2022 and same be processed further. No other submissions have been made. 5. As against this, Mr. Chinmay M. Gandhi, learned advocate appearing for the respondent-authority has vehemently opposed the petition by submitting that a serious attempt is made by petitioners to suppress material facts. He would submit that if petitioners had placed proper facts on record, probably this Court might not have called upon the respondent to file its reply and on this count alone, petition is liable to be dismissed. Mr. He would submit that if petitioners had placed proper facts on record, probably this Court might not have called upon the respondent to file its reply and on this count alone, petition is liable to be dismissed. Mr. Gandhi, learned advocate has further submitted that initial date for online submission of tender was 02.03.2022 whereas for submission of EMD/Technical Bid and submission of Bid physically was provided till 05.03.2022 and there were several extensions granted through various corrigendums and has detailed out each corrigendum which was indicated with specific time and the Chart with respect to that is also mentioned in paragraph No. 2 of the petition and we deem it proper to reproduce hereunder: “(2) I respectfully submit that, the respondent herein has floated tender No. MGVCL/DSM/EOV/SRT/2021-22/2137 through (n) procure portal on 09.02.2022. Initially, the date for Online submission of the Tender was 02.03.2022 and the date for submission to EMD/Technical Bid was 05.03.2022 and the date of opening of the same was 07.03.2022. Thereafter, there were several extensions of the same and accordingly, corrigendum were issued, details whereof is as under: Status On line submission last date Physical submission last date Date of opening of Bid Original 02.03.2022 05.03.2022 07.03.2022 Corri.-I Regarding Pre-Bid meeting Corri.-II 23.03.2022 25.03.2022 28.03.2022 Corri.-III 07.04.2022 11.04.2022 12.04.2022 Corri.-IV 22.04.2022 26.04.2022 27.04.2022 Corri.-V 07.05.2022 10.05.2022 11.05.2022 Corri.-VI 23.05.2022 25.05.2022 26.05.2022 Corri.-VII Revision of Price Bid Corri.-VIII 30.05.2022 02.06.2022 03.06.2022 Corri.-IX 30.05.2022 02.06.2022 03.06.2022 Corri.-X 30.05.2022 02.06.2022 03.06.2022 Corri.-XI 31.05.2022 02.06.2022 03.06.2022 It is pertinent to mention at this stage that by way of Corrigendum-XI the date of Online submission was extended by a day only because of various representations received from bidders and representative of n procure portal that n procure website was not working properly due to slowness of its portal. It is submitted that on 30.05.2022 approximately 565 tenders were issued and after an extension of a day, on 31.05.2022, in all 734 bids were received online. Copy of the entire Tender Document is hereto annexed and marked as ANNEXURE-A. Copy of the last extension i.e. Corrigendum No. XI dated 30.05.2022 is hereto annexed and marked as ANNEXURE-B.” 5.1 After referring to this, Mr. Copy of the entire Tender Document is hereto annexed and marked as ANNEXURE-A. Copy of the last extension i.e. Corrigendum No. XI dated 30.05.2022 is hereto annexed and marked as ANNEXURE-B.” 5.1 After referring to this, Mr. Gandhi, learned advocate has further submitted that there are specific clauses and important footnotes have also been mentioned in the tender document in which condition No. 3 shown under the head “NOTE: IMPORTANT” which relates to submission of Bid parts which clearly stipulate that: “The following Mandatory documents as stated hereunder are required to be submitted in physical form in offline (in Original) and Online Modes during Technical Bid submission in a sealed cover stated as “Offline Documents for RFP - Empanelment of Vendors for Implementation of Grid connected Roof Top Solar PV System for CAPEX for General/Open Category (Please mention clearly) PART & kWp capacity.” 5.2 Further, it has been pointed out that condition No. (F) of the tender document would also clearly stipulate the date and time for submission of physical documents by the respective Bidders and it has further been pointed clearly in condition No. (G) that: “No tender shall be accepted/opened in any case which are received after due date and time of receipt of tender irrespective of delay due to Postal Service or any other reasons and concern company shall not assume any responsibility for late receipt of tender. Any correspondence in this matter will not be entertained.” 5.3 Mr. Gandhi, learned advocate by inviting our attention to this condition has clearly stated that from the beginning of publication, the petitioners were conscious about these conditions and were aware about consequences of its noncompliance thereof and as such it is not open for the petitioners now to raise any grievance about the time or date or any schedule of the tender. It has further been pointed out by Mr. Gandhi, learned advocate that when the tender was preliminary opened up at the initial stage 702 Bids were qualified while 32 Bids were disqualified for various reasons. It has further been pointed out by Mr. Gandhi, learned advocate that when the tender was preliminary opened up at the initial stage 702 Bids were qualified while 32 Bids were disqualified for various reasons. Out of such 32 Bids, in 14 Bids the EMD/Technical cover were received after the due date i.e. 02.06.2022 and as such same were rejected in view of clauses contained in the tender document, namely, clauses (F) and (G) and as such petitioners would not be entitled to contend that on account of fixed time schedule, petitioners could not submit the tender on time on account of short period especially when more than 700 persons have been able to submit their Bid, how petitioners were not in a position to tender their bids within the very same schedule has remained unanswered and as such it is not open for the petitioners to raise any grievance with regard to inadequate time. In fact, they were clearly aware about the requirement of time right from the beginning. 5.4 Mr. Gandhi, learned advocate for respondent has further submitted that in respect of this tender process 702 qualified Bidders were verified on 07.06.2022, 08.06.2022 and 09.06.2022 the technical Bids were opened for such Bidders. While all other disqualified Bidders were intimated about their disqualification on 09.06.2022 and as such petition may not be entertained when all other persons were in a position to tender their Bids. In fact, when on the very same schedule as many as 716 Bidders have been able to submit their tenders off-line, there was no earthly reason for the petitioners not to meet with the same time schedule if others are in a position to comply. Hence, there is no merit in the stand taken by the petitioners in the present petition. 5.5 Mr. Gandhi, learned advocate has further submitted that except three corrigendums, 3, 4 days were given while in all other corrigendum, the same time schedule of 2 days was prescribed and simply because the petitioners could not meet with the time schedule the condition contained in the tender document cannot be agitated by the petitioners to be unreasonable or arbitrary. Hence, in view of this situation, hardly any case is made out to call for any interference. 5.6 Mr. Hence, in view of this situation, hardly any case is made out to call for any interference. 5.6 Mr. Gandhi, learned advocate has further submitted that once having accepted the conditions with open eyes and tried to submit the Bids and having participated in the process, petitioners cannot agitate any process contained in the tender publication. Hence, no case is made out and there is hardly any merit for the petitioners to request for acceptance of Bid which is undoubtly, undisputedly received after the deadline prescribed in the tender reason. In fact, the material document of MGVCL which has been published was well within the knowledge of petitioners and it has not been produced and respondent-authority is constrained to produce the same to assist the Court and for that purpose, Mr. Gandhi, learned advocate has drawn the attention of the Court to page 203 of the petition compilation and the documents attached to the affidavit-in-reply and has pointed out the clause which relates to delayed and late tenders and by referring to it, has vehemently opposed the petition and requested the Court to dismiss the same. 6. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and having gone through the material placed on record before us, we are of the considered view, this petition lacks merits and is liable to be dismissed for reasons indicated herein-below. 7. The initial date with respect to submission of online Bid was 02.03.2022 whereas for physical submission of documents was prescribed on 05.03.2022 which dates came to be extended from time to time and it has been contended by the respondent-authority that corrigendums were issued by virtue of which several extensions came to be granted and this fact was also well within the knowledge of all the petitioners. Further, on the basis of very time schedule, prescribed by the authority, including the deadline prescribed in corrigendum-9 as well as other corrigendums approximately in all 734 Bids were received through online upto 31.05.2022 and as petitioners are not justified in contending that on account of lack of time it was physically impossible to tender Bids. Further, on the basis of very time schedule, prescribed by the authority, including the deadline prescribed in corrigendum-9 as well as other corrigendums approximately in all 734 Bids were received through online upto 31.05.2022 and as petitioners are not justified in contending that on account of lack of time it was physically impossible to tender Bids. When 734 persons are in a position to submit their respective Bids on the basis of very same schedule there is hardly any justification on the part of petitioners to submit that on account of two days being provided they were not in a position to tender the Bids and as such the contention of petitioners is outrightly rejected. From the record, it further appears these petitioners were from the beginning aware about the process of tender and procedure adopted thereunder, including the conditions which were noted down in the documents. It appears from the record that condition No. 3 which deals with submission of Bid parts, requiring such person to submit the Bid documents in physical form in off-line (in original) and online modes during technical Bid submission in a sealed cover. Condition No. (F) clearly stipulates that if the physical documents of tender would not reach the respondent office within the mentioned date and time the offer will be outrightly rejected even if successful submission of online tender. Since these two conditions are relevant, the Court deems it proper to reproduce hereunder: “3. Submission of Bid Parts: “The following Mandatory documents as stated hereunder are required to be submitted in physical form in offline (in Original) and Online Modes during Technical Bid submission in sealed cover stated as “Offline Documents for RFP - Empanelment of Vendors for Implementation of Grid connected Roof Top Solar PV System for CAPEX for General/Open Category (Please mention clearly) PART & kWp capacity.” (F) If the physical documents tender will not reached the office within mentioned date and time the office will be out rightly rejected even if successfully submission of On Line Tender.” 8. From the record, it further appears that there is yet another condition No. (G), which deals with delayed and late tender whereunder it has been specifically indicated that no tender would be accepted irrespective of delay due to Postal Service or any other reason. From the record, it further appears that there is yet another condition No. (G), which deals with delayed and late tender whereunder it has been specifically indicated that no tender would be accepted irrespective of delay due to Postal Service or any other reason. Since the said condition is also relevant here in the present controversy, the Court deems it proper to reproduce hereunder: “No tender shall be accepted/opened in any case which are received after due date and time of receipt of tender irrespective of delayed due to postal service or any other reasons and concern company shall not assume any responsibility for late receipt of tender. Any correspondence in this matter will not be entertained.” 9. The aforesaid conditions are well within the knowledge of petitioners. Thus, it is not open for the petitioners now to contend that such conditions are arbitrary after having participated in the process with open eyes and on the basis of same very conditions as many as 734 Bids have been received by the respondent-authority even on online basis. As such, at the instance of these petitioners, the Court is not inclined to declare the said conditions as arbitrary or irrational if any form. If others are in a position to comply with said time schedule on very same condition it is not open for the petitioners to agitate about such conditions especially when undisputedly they made an attempt only on 02.06.2022 to forward the documents. That being so, the grievance voiced out by the petitioners is not possible to be accepted by this Court. 10. Even apparent reading of conditions does not sound any arbitrariness or violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and as such no case is made out by the petitioners to call for any interference more particularly in view of the fact that prescription of condition is essentially domain of tender inviting authority. 11. On the basis of very same conditions from amongst those who tendered their Bids, 702 Bidders got qualified after verification which took place on 07.06.2022, 08.06.2022 and 09.06.2022 by opening their respective technical Bids. 11. On the basis of very same conditions from amongst those who tendered their Bids, 702 Bidders got qualified after verification which took place on 07.06.2022, 08.06.2022 and 09.06.2022 by opening their respective technical Bids. It is also stated on oath by the respondent authority that all other disqualified Bidders were intimated about their disqualification on 09.06.2022 and as such when the aforesaid situation is prevailing on record, the contention of petitioners that they were not in a position to successfully go through the process on account of last date fixed for grant of relief appears to be unjust and improper and as such we are not inclined to set aside the condition of physical submission of tender copy as indicated in corrigendum-11 dated 30.05.2022. Such condition cannot be declared as invalid on the basis of averments made in the petition which is bereft of material particulars. 12. From the pleadings, it appears that when more than 700 Bidders have been able to maintain the time schedule prescribed in the tender process for few handful persons like petitioners such conditions which are already operated upon cannot be relaxed. It appears to this Court that in a given situation even if there is some delay caused on account of postal authorities, the Writ Court would not issue direction to the authorities to accept the bid. Subsequent to the last date of submission for submission of bids. Same would tantamount to substitution or relaxation of condition which is essentially within the domain of authority and what kind of condition is to be stipulated or what should be the last date to be prescribed is basically the function of tender inviting authority and on account of petitioners not being able to maintain the last date fixed under tender, this Court would not be inclined to take any lenient view which may tantamount to unsettling the time schedule prescribed by tender inviting authority and undisputedly petitioners have made an attempt only on 02.06.2022 to submit the documents by physical mode by dispatching through speed posts. On the basis of such postal delay or the delay which has taken place, no sympathetic view can be taken since Writ Court has its own self imposed limitation and keeping such circumstances in mind the stand of the petitioners is not possible to be accepted. Accordingly, there is hardly any case made out by the petitioners. 13. On the basis of such postal delay or the delay which has taken place, no sympathetic view can be taken since Writ Court has its own self imposed limitation and keeping such circumstances in mind the stand of the petitioners is not possible to be accepted. Accordingly, there is hardly any case made out by the petitioners. 13. From the averments of the application, it would emerge that physical copy of documents submitted by the petitioners through post had not reached the respondent by 02.06.2022. Accordingly, on the basis of this undisputed situation, the Court is not inclined either to quash or set aside the condition of physical submission of tender nor this Court is inclined to direct the authority to consider and treat the tender submitted by petitioners which is received beyond the time fixed to be treated as submitted within the time schedule. Hence, none of the contentions raised by the petitioners have appealed to this Court for grant of relief as prayed for in the petition. 14. At this stage it is apposite to note the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court with regard to judicial review in respect of contractual matters wherein it has been held that Courts should refrain from either altering the conditions or to substitute the same as it is essentially within the domain of tender inviting authority and as such unless and until the condition appears to be absolutely arbitrary or it would violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the Courts normally refrain from exercising writ jurisdiction and especially in the Government contracts. Hence, in view of this proposition of law which has been settled by series of decisions, this Court is not inclined to entertain the petition. 15. Since the Court has considered such proposition in mind while disposing of the present petition, the Court deems it proper to refer to and rely upon few observations contained in the decision delivered by Hon’ble Apex Court, in a very recent judgment, in the case of M/s. N.G. Projects Limited vs. M/s Vinod Kumar Jain and Others in Civil Appeal No. 1846 of 2022 decided on 21.03.2022 whereunder it has clearly demarcated the line of exercise of jurisdiction in respect of contractual issues more particularly in tender matters. The relevant observations are as under: “22. The relevant observations are as under: “22. The satisfaction whether a bidder satisfies the tender condition is primarily upon the authority inviting the bids. Such authority is aware of expectations from the tenderers while evaluating the consequences of non-performance. In the tender in question, there were 15 bidders. Bids of 13 tenderers were found to be unresponsive i.e., not satisfying the tender conditions. The writ petitioner was one of them. It is not the case of the writ petitioner that action of the Technical Evaluation Committee was actuated by extraneous considerations or was malafide. Therefore, on the same set of facts, different conclusions can be arrived at in a bona-fide manner by the Technical Evaluation Committee. Since the view of the Technical Evaluation Committee was not to the liking of the writ petitioner, such decision does not warrant for interference in a grant of contract to a successful bidder. 23. In view of the above judgments of this Court, the Writ Court should re-frain itself from imposing its decision over the decision of the employer as to whether or not to accept the bid of a tenderer. The Court does not have the expertise to examine the terms and conditions of the present-day economic activities of the State and this limitation should be kept in view. Courts should be even more reluctant in interfering with contracts involving technical issues as there is a requirement of the necessary ex-pertise to adjudicate upon such issues. The approach of the Court should be not to find fault with magnifying glass in its hands, rather the Court should examine as to whether the decision-making process is after complying with the procedure contemplated by the tender conditions. If the Court finds that there is total arbitrariness or that the tender has been granted in a malafide manner, still the Court should refrain from interfering in the grant of tender but instead relegate the parties to seek damages for the wrongful exclusion rather than to injunct the execution of the contract. The injunction or interference in the tender leads to additional costs on the State and is also against public interest. Therefore, the State and its citizens suffer twice, firstly by paying escalation costs and secondly, by being deprived of the infrastructure for which the present-day Governments are expected to work. 26. The injunction or interference in the tender leads to additional costs on the State and is also against public interest. Therefore, the State and its citizens suffer twice, firstly by paying escalation costs and secondly, by being deprived of the infrastructure for which the present-day Governments are expected to work. 26. A word of caution ought to be mentioned herein that any contract of public service should not be interfered with lightly and in any case, there should not be any interim order derailing the entire process of the services meant for larger public good. The grant of interim injunction by the learned Single Bench of the High Court has helped no-one except a contractor who lost a contract bid and has only caused loss to the State with no corresponding gain to anyone.” 16. Yet, in another decision, Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Agmatel India Private Limited vs. Resoursys Telecom and Others, (2022) 5 SCC 362 , has clearly held that when the decision is taken by tender inviting authority if it is in consonance with the language of the tender document then Court should follow the principle of restraint and it has been further held that the author of tender document, is taken to be the best person to understand and appreciate its requirement and if the interpretation of such author is manifestly in consonance with the language of the tender document, the Court should not normally interfere with and it has also been held that interpretation of terms and conditions is essentially left to the author of tender document and the occasion for interference by Court would only arise if questioned decision fails the salutary test laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in consistent decisions, namely, irrationality or unreasonableness or bias or procedural impropriety. The terms of the tender if clear and ascertainable the principle of restraint would require to be kept in mind by the Court. Hence, in view of aforesaid observations of Hon'ble Apex Court when contentions raised by the petitioner in the present case on hand is examined, we are of the opinion that petitioner has not made out any case calling for our interference. 17. Hence, in view of aforesaid observations of Hon'ble Apex Court when contentions raised by the petitioner in the present case on hand is examined, we are of the opinion that petitioner has not made out any case calling for our interference. 17. In view of aforesaid proposition of law and in view of the background of facts of the present case prevailing on record, this Court is satisfied that no case is made out by the petitioners to entertain the reliefs prayed for in the petition. Hence, petition being devoid of merit stands dismissed with no order as to costs. However, the aforesaid order of dismissal would not come in the way of the parties arriving at settlement if they chose to do so.