Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 502 (BOM)

H. P. Ghumare v. State Of Maharashtra

2023-02-16

S.V.GANGAPURWALA, SANDEEP V.MARNE

body2023
JUDGMENT Sandeep V. Marne, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, Petition is heard finally. 2. Petitioner assails communication dated 30/09/2021 rejecting his technical bid submitted in pursuance of Request of Proposal for appointment of transporters for transporting food grains and other essentials (RFP). Petitioner has also sought a declaration to hold him eligible in technical scrutiny and to consider his final bid. Petitioner also challenges tender condition No. QC-6 in clause 4 of the RFP, so also clause 5.1 of the Government Resolution dated 15th January, 2021 by reading it down to make it sustainable in law. 3. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the State Government through the Department of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection issued RFP on 26/08/2021. The scope of work envisages two stages viz. (I) Stage-I - Transportation of food grains from godowns of Food Corporation of India to District Government Warehousing Godowns and (ii) Stage-II - Transportation of food grains from District Government Warehouses to Taluka Fair Price Shops. Clause 4 of the RFP provides for eligibility criteria. Condition No. QC-9 of clause 4 provides that the bidders shall be bound by the all terms and conditions of RFP and also of Government Resolution dated 15/01/2021. 4. RFP has been issued in pursuance of Government Resolution dated 15/01/2021 laying down guidelines for entering into contracts for transportation of food grains and other essentials. Paragraph No. 5 of the Government Resolution provides for the eligibility terms and conditions to be specified in the tender. 5. Petitioner submitted his bid in pursuance of RFP under strength of his experience inter alia of work of transportation of food grains in Beed district during the period 2015-16 to 2016-17 under a similar contract. Petitioner submitted his bid for Pune district. The technical bids were opened and admitted for technical evaluation on 16/09/2021. By e-mail dated 16/08/2021 petitioner was called upon to cure the defects which included the defect of experience not being found meeting the tender condition. Another letter dated 27/09/2021 was issued by the Desk Officer for curing the said defects. Petitioner offered his explanation to the queries by his communication dated 27/09/2021. Petitioner's technical bid, however, came to be rejected on account of he not possessing the requisite experience, both in stage-I and stage-II and the decision was conveyed vide letter dated 30/09/2021. 6. Another letter dated 27/09/2021 was issued by the Desk Officer for curing the said defects. Petitioner offered his explanation to the queries by his communication dated 27/09/2021. Petitioner's technical bid, however, came to be rejected on account of he not possessing the requisite experience, both in stage-I and stage-II and the decision was conveyed vide letter dated 30/09/2021. 6. Petitioner has filed present petition challenging the rejection of his technical bid. When petition came up for admission on 5th October, 2021, this court directed it to be tagged with Writ Petition No. 6199 of 2021 in which interim order was passed directing respondents not to proceed further in pursuance of the RFP for 07 districts including Pune district. That interim protection has been continued from time to time and continues to operate till date. In view of the interim order passed by this Court, the respondents have not opened final bids, nor have not issued work orders in respect of Pune district. 7. Appearing for petitioner, Ms. Talekar the learned counsel would submit that condition no. QC-6 of clause 4 of RFP is not in consonance with clause 5.1 of the Government Resolution dated 15/01/2021. She would submit that in clause 5.1 of the Government Resolution, bidders were required to possess experience to the extent of 33% of total transportation work executed in past 3 years in the district, which can be cumulative experience of a bidder for 5 years. She would submit that clause 5.1 of the Government Resolution nowhere provide such experience of 33% should be in respect of 1 year alone. As against this condition in clause 5.1, respondents erroneously included condition No. QC-6 in RFP requiring the work experience as per district sheet in 1 year. Ms. Talekar would submit that 33% of work experience in Pune district is notified as 2,80,015 MT in Stage-1 and 1,57,584 MT in Stage-2, whereas petitioner possesses experience of transporting 3,58,022.682 MT during the year 2015-16 to 2017-18 in Stage-1 and 1,80,877.041 MT in Stage-2. She would, submits that therefore petitioner meets the eligibility criteria as per clause 5.1. However, on account of arbitrary and erroneous condition in clause QC-6 of possession of 33% of work experience in 1 year, petitioner is held ineligible. To that extent, the petitioner has challenged condition No. QC-6 of the RFP in the present petition. 8. Ms. She would, submits that therefore petitioner meets the eligibility criteria as per clause 5.1. However, on account of arbitrary and erroneous condition in clause QC-6 of possession of 33% of work experience in 1 year, petitioner is held ineligible. To that extent, the petitioner has challenged condition No. QC-6 of the RFP in the present petition. 8. Ms. Talekar would contend that insistence of the State Government for 33% work experience in 1 year would tantamount to possession of work experience to the tune of 100% of work to be executed in a particular district. This is not envisaged in the Government Resolution. That, condition No. QC-6 in the RFP is tailor made to suit bidders of choice and that therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. Since petitioner is alleging misconstruction of condition by the State Government, he is entitled to challenge the tender condition even after participation in the tender process and in support of this contention she would rely on the judgment of Apex Court in Dr. (Major) Meeta Sahai Vs. State of Bihar, (2019) 20 SCC 17 . She would also rely on Division Bench judgment of this court Bench at Aurangabad in Navjeevan Yuvak Mandal, Shirud Vs. The Secretary, Ministry of Chemical and Fertilizers, Government of India, W. P. No. 8877 of 2019 decided on 21/09/2019 in support of her contention that clause QC-6 of the RFP will have to be read in the context of the guidelines issued by the State Government in the form of Government Resolution. 9. Per contra, Mr. Kumbhkoni the learned senior advocate appearing for the respondent-State would oppose the petition and support State's action. He would submit that scope of interference by this court in a tender matter is extremely narrow. That the State Government has interpreted clause 5.1 of the Government Resolution in a particular manner by including condition No. QC-6 in the RFP, which would prevail over the one placed by the petitioner as tendering body is the best judge to determine terms and conditions of the tender. He would submit that condition No. QC-6 in the RFP is in consonance with clause 5.1 of the Government Resolution. 10. Mr. Kumbhakoni would further submit that petitioner failed to raise any objection to condition No. QC-6 in pre-bid meeting and participated in the tender process without any demur. He would submit that condition No. QC-6 in the RFP is in consonance with clause 5.1 of the Government Resolution. 10. Mr. Kumbhakoni would further submit that petitioner failed to raise any objection to condition No. QC-6 in pre-bid meeting and participated in the tender process without any demur. That condition No. QC-6 has been uniformly applied to all bidders and there is no arbitrariness or favouritism on the part of the State Government. He would submit that in pursuance of condition No. QC-6 in the RFP, the State Government has been able to receive sufficient bids and had finalised tender process by issuance of work orders in as many as 26 districts. Even in respect of Pune district, 06 bids were received out of which 03 are found technically qualified. In support of his contention Mr. Kumbhkoni would rely upon judgment of Apex Court in Uniflex Ltd. Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2021 SCC Online SC 738. 11. In rejoinder Ms. Talekar would submit that petitioner is not required to set up a challenge to condition No. QC-6 as the word 'minimum' is not used in that condition. That conjoint reading clauses 5.1 and 5.3 of the Government Resolution would make it further clear that 'cumulative' experience (in clause 5.1) and financial capacity (in 5.3) during 3/5 years is required to be taken into consideration. 12. We have considered the submissions. Petitioner is held ineligible in the technical evaluation on account of non-possession of requisite experience provided for in condition No. QC-6 of clause 4 of the RFP. It would, therefore, appropriate to reproduce condition No. QC-6. 'The bidder must have the work experience as per district sheet in M. Tons. from Foodgrains Transport business for Govt / Semi Government Organisations of 1 year in the successive preceding Five years. (2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20)' 'The bidder must have the work experience of doorstep delivery schemes or similar to any such schemes from 'Foodgrains Transport business for Central Government, State Government / Semi Government Organisations.' 13. Thus, under condition No. QC-6, the bidders were required to possess work experience of food grains transport to Government / Semi Government Organisations 'of one year' as per district sheet in successive preceding 05 years. Thus, under condition No. QC-6, the bidders were required to possess work experience of food grains transport to Government / Semi Government Organisations 'of one year' as per district sheet in successive preceding 05 years. The district sheet for Pune has been published alongwith RFP which reflects that the total transport work undertaken in Pune district in previous 03 years was 6,60,762 MT. 33% of the said figure has been reflected as 2,18,051 in Stage-1 and 1,57,548 in Stage-2. According to the State Government, bidders must possess experience of transporting 2,18,051 MT foodgrains in Stage-1 and 1,57,548 MT food grains in Stage-2 in any 1 of the preceding 5 financial years. Petitioner has produced experience certificate at Exh. 'D' to the petition and following is the position with regard to his experience of the petitioner vis-à-vis tender requirement: Financial year 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 (Till August 2017) Total Requirement as per district sheet Stage-1 in M. Tons. 142350.154 155532.828 60139.880 358022.862 218051 Stage-2 in M. Tons. 39297.198 122659.515 18920.328 180877.041 157548 14. While the State Government contends that the figure of transportation of foodgrains in 1 year is required to be taken into consideration, petitioner's contention is that the cumulative figure of transportation undertaken by him during 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 is required to be taken into consideration. The above chart would indicate that if the requirement of work experience of any one of the financial years of 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 is taken into consideration, petitioner doe not meet the required experience of 2,18,051 MT in Stage-1 or 1,57,548 in Stage-2. However, if cumulative figures of transportation of 03 years is taken into consideration, petitioner has work experience of 3,58,022.862 MT in Stage-1 and 1,80,877.041 MT in Stage-2, thereby meeting the requirement as per district sheet. 15. There is no doubt that condition No. QC-6 requires work experience of 1 year alone. Even though Ms. However, if cumulative figures of transportation of 03 years is taken into consideration, petitioner has work experience of 3,58,022.862 MT in Stage-1 and 1,80,877.041 MT in Stage-2, thereby meeting the requirement as per district sheet. 15. There is no doubt that condition No. QC-6 requires work experience of 1 year alone. Even though Ms. Talekar in her submissions did attempt to interpret condition No. QC-6 to mean consideration of cumulative work experience of 05 years, Petitioner cannot run away from the fact that he has challenged condition No. QC-6 in prayer clause 'C' of the petition which reads thus - 'To quash the tender QC-6 in clause 4 of the tender conditions of RFP issued by the respondent No. 1 on 26/08/2021, by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, as the case may be.' 16. The entire petition proceeds on the footing that tender condition No. QC-6 requires bidders to possess work experience in 1 financial year. In this regard the averments in ground clause 1 of the petition reads thus - 'At the outset, the impugned communication dated 30/09/2021 rejecting the technical bid of the petitioner on the ground that it does not possess the requisite experience in one financial year is contrary to the Government Resolution dated 15/01/2021.' (emphasis supplied) 17. We would proceed ahead on the basis of pleadings in the petition ignoring the oral submissions of Ms. Talekar about possible interpretation of condition QC-6 to mean consideration of cumulative experience of 5 years. Even otherwise, condition QC-6 appears quite unambiguous requiring work experience of one year only. 18. Having achieved clarity about the exact requirement under condition No. QC-6, we now proceed to examine whether condition No. QC-6 violates clause 5.1 of the Government Resolution. Clause 5 of the Government Resolution, which is in Marathi, has been translated by the petitioner as under - '5.1 The tenderer should have experience in Government / Semi-Government Food Transport for at least one of the last 5 consecutive financial years. The work experience of the tenderer should be 33% MT capacity of the transport work done in the last 03 years in the district / constituency in which he is tendering. The experience must be in the name of the person in whose name the tender is being submitted. The work experience of the tenderer should be 33% MT capacity of the transport work done in the last 03 years in the district / constituency in which he is tendering. The experience must be in the name of the person in whose name the tender is being submitted. 5.2 The work experience mentioned in paragraph 5.1 above should be the experience of government / semi- government transport work of Dwar Poch Yojana or other scheme of Central / State Government which are compatible with this scheme. In order to accept the experience of transport work from Central Government, State Government and Semi-Governmental Institutions, a copy of the order of all these works and the experience certificate of the competent officer has to be submitted. 5.3 Financial Capacity - The total minimum financial transactions of the tenderer for the same period for which experience is shown in paragraph 5.1 above should be 33% of the total expenditure incurred on transportation in the last 03 years in the district / constituency in which he is tendering.' 19. It is on the basis of the language employed in paragraph 5.1 of the Government Resolution that the petitioner has raised a plea that cumulative work expenditure of 05 years can be taken into consideration for meeting the requisite criteria of 33% MT capacity of transportation work done in last 03 years in the district / constituency in which the bid is submitted. 20. The respondents have published district sheet alongwith RFP to present the figures representing the 33% capacity and turnover referred to in paragraph No. 5.1 and 5.3 of Government Resolution for the sake of convenience of the bidders. In that sheet, the total transportation work undertaken in past 3 years in Pune district is stated as 660762 MT and the value at Rs. 4,36,05,780/-. As observed above, the scope of work envisages two stage structure, with Stage-I involving transportation from godowns of FCI to District Government Warehouses and Stage-II involving transportation from District Government Warehouses to Taluka Fair Price Shops. Accordingly, 33% of the total figures of quantity of transportation undertaken in past 03 years are also disclosed in the district sheet as 2,18,051 MT for stage-1 and 1,57,548 MT for stage-2. 21. Accordingly, 33% of the total figures of quantity of transportation undertaken in past 03 years are also disclosed in the district sheet as 2,18,051 MT for stage-1 and 1,57,548 MT for stage-2. 21. The State Government has interpreted clause 5.1 of the Government Resolution to mean that the bidders must possess work experience of transportation of 2,18,051 MT in Stage-1 and 1,57,548 MT in Stage-2 in one out of the 05 years. This court, in Shalimar Transport And Carting Contractor vs. The Govt of Maharashtra (Writ Petition No. 9279 of 2021 decided on 13-10-2021), has held that Clause 5.1 requires work experience of the capacity of 33% of the work of transportation carried out during previous three years in the District, meaning thereby the total work of transportation inclusive of Phase-I and Phase-II. It is held in the Judgment as under: 10. Clause 5.1 nowhere suggest the tenderer to possess experience of Phase- I or Phase- II. It only requires work experience upto 33% of the work of transportation carried out during past three years. The said experience may be either in 9 wp 9279.2021 Phase-I or Phase- II. The debate whether 33% experience of transportation of Phase-I or Phase- II is irrelevant and is merely entering into verbal jugglery. Clause 5.1 as reproduced supra requires work experience of the capacity of 33% of the work of transportation carried out during previous three years in the District, meaning thereby the total work of transportation inclusive of Phase-I and Phase-II. To illustrate if total transportation of Phase-I and Phase-II in the District is 100/- i.e. 50 of each then tenderer should have experience of 33. The said 33 may be of First Phase only and he may not have any experience of Second Phase but if the tenderer has experience of 25% of the transportation carried out during previous three years in the District he cannot say that it is more than 33% of First Phase so he is qualified. The 33% capacity should be of the total transportation of the food grains taken place during previous 3 years and not of only either First or Second Phase. 22. Thus, irrespective of figures indicated in Stage-I and Stage-II, the bidders must meet total 33% quantity of the district in past 3 years. The 33% capacity should be of the total transportation of the food grains taken place during previous 3 years and not of only either First or Second Phase. 22. Thus, irrespective of figures indicated in Stage-I and Stage-II, the bidders must meet total 33% quantity of the district in past 3 years. Petitioner has interpreted clause 5.1 to mean that the cumulative transportation undertaken during past 05 years is required be taken into consideration to meet the figures in district sheet. After careful perusal of clause 5.1 of Government Resolution, we are not in a position to draw an inference with a degree of certainty that cumulative experience of 05 years can be taken into consideration. Even though clause 5.1 also does not specifically provide that work experience of only 01 year is required to be taken into consideration, the State Government has interpreted the clause to mean that only 01 year's experience would be taken into consideration. Whether State Government is entitled to do so is something which needs to be examined. It is settled law that the tendering authority is the best judge to decide terms and conditions of tender depending on its requirements. This court would not be in a position to determine validity of particular requirement provided for in RFP. The Government Resolution is merely an administrative instruction laying down guidelines, which cannot be interpreted as if it is a statutory rule. After taking into consideration the guidelines, the State Government has decided to include condition of possession of work experience in only 1 financial year. We cannot sit in appeal over said decision of State Government. 23. In Afcons Infrastructure Limited v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Limited & Anr. (2016) 16 SCC 818 the Apex Court held that the owner or the employer of a project, having authored the tender documents, is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements and interpret its documents. It was held as under: 15. We may add that the owner or the employer of a project, having authored the tender documents, is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements and interpret its documents. The constitutional courts must de-fer to this understanding and appreciation of the tender documents, unless there is mala fide or perversity in the understanding or appreciation or in the application of the terms of the tender conditions. The constitutional courts must de-fer to this understanding and appreciation of the tender documents, unless there is mala fide or perversity in the understanding or appreciation or in the application of the terms of the tender conditions. It is possible that the owner or employer of a project may give an interpreta-tion to the tender documents that is not acceptable to the constitutional courts but that by itself is not a rea-son for interfering with the interpretation given.' (emphasis supplied) 24. Again, in Silppi Constructions Contractors v. Union of India and Ors 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1133 the Apex Court held as under: 20. The essence of the law laid down in the judgments re-ferred to above is the exercise of restraint and caution; the need for overwhelming public interest to justify judicial in-tervention in matters of contract involving the state instru-mentalities; the courts should give way to the opinion of the experts unless the decision is totally arbitrary or unrea-sonable; the court does not sit like a court of appeal over the appropriate authority; the court must realize that the authority floating the tender is the best judge of its requirements and, therefore, the court's interfer-ence should be minimal. The authority which floats the contract or tender and has authored the tender documents is the best judge as to how the documents have to be interpreted. If two interpretations are possi-ble then the interpretation of the author must be ac-cepted. The courts will only interfere to prevent arbitrari-ness, irrationality, bias, mala fides or perversity. With this approach in mind, we shall deal with the present case.' (emphasis supplied) 25. In Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (2012) 8 SCC 216 the Apex Court has summarized the contours of scope of judicial review in tender matters after considering its various judgments. It is held as under: 23. From the above decisions, the following principles emerge: (a) The basic requirement of Article 14 is fairness in action by the State, and non-arbitrariness in essence and sub-stance is the heartbeat of fair play. These actions are amenable to the judicial review only to the extent that the State must act validly for a discernible reason and not whimsically for any ulterior purpose. These actions are amenable to the judicial review only to the extent that the State must act validly for a discernible reason and not whimsically for any ulterior purpose. If the State acts within the bounds of reasonableness, it would be legitimate to take into consideration the national priorities; (b) Fixation of a value of the tender is entirely within the purview of the executive and the courts hardly have any role to play in this process except for striking down such action of the executive as is proved to be arbitrary or un-reasonable. If the Government acts in conformity with cer-tain healthy standards and norms such as awarding of contracts by inviting tenders, in those circumstances, the interference by courts is very limited; (c) In the matter of formulating conditions of a tender document and awarding a contract, greater latitude is required to be conceded to the State authorities un-less the action of the tendering authority is found to be malicious and a misuse of its statutory powers, in-terference by courts is not warranted; (d) Certain preconditions or qualifications for tenders have to be laid down to ensure that the contractor has the ca-pacity and the resources to successfully execute the work; and (e) If the State or its instrumentalities act reasonably, fairly and in public interest in awarding contract, here again, in-terference by court is very restrictive since no person can claim a fundamental right to carry on business with the Government. (emphasis supplied) 26. In Uflex Ltd. (supra) relied upon by Mr. Kumbhakoni, the above principles have been reiterated. 27. It is thus a settled law that if two interrelations with regard to terms of tender are possible, the one made by the tendering authority is required to be accepted. State Government has interpreted clause 5.1 of the Government Resolution to mean possession of work experience in one of the five years and not cumulative experience of 5 years. That interpretation is plausible one and therefore, we are unable to hold condition No. QC-6 in clause 4 of the RFP to be illegal or arbitrary. 28. Mr. Talekar's has contended that expecting work experience of 1 year alone would tantamount to possession of 100% execution of work in a given district. The contention looks attractive in first blush, but after delving deeper, we find that the same would lead to absurdity. 28. Mr. Talekar's has contended that expecting work experience of 1 year alone would tantamount to possession of 100% execution of work in a given district. The contention looks attractive in first blush, but after delving deeper, we find that the same would lead to absurdity. If cumulative work experience of 5 years as per wish of Petitioner is taken into consideration, it would result in bidders with minuscule work experience acquiring eligibility. To illustrate, if work executed in a district is 100 MT each year (Total 300 MT in past three years), required work experience would be 99 MT (33% of 300 MT). If this requirement is spread over 5 years as expected by Petitioner, contractors transporting 19.8 MT each year will acquire eligibility. Thus, for transporting possible 100 MT food grains in that district, bidder with work experience and capacity of merely 19.8 MT would become eligible. Conversely, if work experience of 1 year alone (99MT) is insisted, only bidders with sufficient capacity and experience would be eligible. It must be borne in mind that several contractors have experience of transpiration in multiple districts, and even for those contractors who have transported in single district, they can bid in a smaller district based on their past work experience in larger district. This is possibly the reason why State Government has been able to find sufficient bidders qualifying the eligibility criteria. As observed above, in respect of Pune district (subject matter of present petition), 6 bids were received out of which 03 are found technically qualified. We therefore do not find that the tender condition is arbitrary or tailormade to favour anyone. 29. Ms. Talekar's reliance on the judgment of Dr. (Major) Meeta Sahai (supra) has become academic as we have proceeded to examine her contentions on merits and have not non-suited petitioner on the ground of participation in the tender process without demur. The reliance on judgment of this court in Navjeevan Yuvak Mandal (supra), far from assisting case of the petitioner, actually militates against him. This court has held in paragraph No. 22 as under - 'The scope of judicial review in tender matter is now well settled. In matters of tender, the powers of judicial review are to be sparingly exercised. The principle of judicial review will apply to the exercise of contractual power by the Government bodies in order to prevent arbitrariness and favouritism. In matters of tender, the powers of judicial review are to be sparingly exercised. The principle of judicial review will apply to the exercise of contractual power by the Government bodies in order to prevent arbitrariness and favouritism. The duty of the court is to confine itself to the question of legality. The judicial review is more concerned with the decision making process. The Court in its real of judicial review does not exercise powers like an appellate authority in an appeal from the decision. The Court is more concerned with due adherence to the decision making process and the manner in which the decision was made. In a case of Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India (supra) the Apex Court referred to the limitations relating to the scope of judicial review of administrative decisions and exercise of powers in awarding contracts. (1) The modern trend points to judicial restraint in administrative action. (2) The court does not sit as a court of appeal but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made. (3) The court does not have the expertise to correct the administrative decision. If a review of the administrative decision is permitted it will be substituting its own decision, without the necessary expertise which itself may be fallible. (4) The terms of the invitation to tender cannot be open to judicial scrutiny because the invitation to tender is in the real of contract. Normally speaking, the decision to accept the tender or award the contract is reached by process of negotiations through several tiers. More often than not, such decisions are made qualitatively by experts. (5) The Government must have freedom of contract. In other words, a fair play in the joints is a necessary concomitant for an administrative body functioning in an administrative sphere or quasi-administrative sphere. However, the decision must not only be tested by the application of Wednesbury principle of reasonableness (including its other facts pointed out above) but bias or actuated by mala fides. (6) Quashing decisions may impose heavy administrative burden on the administration and lead to increased and unbudgeted expenditure. 30. We are therefore not in a position to hold that condition No. QC-6 of clause 4 of RFP is in violation of clause 5.1 of the Government Resolution and therefore reliance of Ms. (6) Quashing decisions may impose heavy administrative burden on the administration and lead to increased and unbudgeted expenditure. 30. We are therefore not in a position to hold that condition No. QC-6 of clause 4 of RFP is in violation of clause 5.1 of the Government Resolution and therefore reliance of Ms. Talekar on judgment of this court in Navjeevan (supra) is of little assistance to the case of petitioner. 31. Resultantly, we do not find any merit in the present petition. The petition is dismissed. Interim order granted earlier shall stands vacated. Rule is discharged. There shall be no order as to costs. 32. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner seeks continuation of interim orders for a period of four weeks. 33. Mr. Kumbhakoni, the learned Senior Advocate for the Respondents opposes the said request. 34. Considering that the interim relief was operating, we continue the same for a period of two weeks. Needless to state that on lapse of two weeks, the said protection shall come to end.