Supreme Court - Daily Orders
National Highways Authority Of India ... vs Neeraj Upadhyay on 21 February, 2014
bC
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 2732 OF 2014
(Arising out of SLP(Civil) No(s). 33606 of 2013)
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA &ORS Appellant(s)
VERSUS
NEERAJ UPADHYAY Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length.
Since this appeal is preferred against an interim order passed by the High Court and the writ petition filed by the respondent is pending consideration, it is not necessary for us to note down the factual matrix in detail.
Suffice it is to note that the appellant Authority herein had invited tenders by issuing public notice in respect of the project of collection of user fee at the Tundla Toll Plaza, Parsoni Toll Plaza and the Naini Bridge Toll Plaza for a period of one year each. One M/s. Utoll Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as " the Company") also participated in the tender process by submitting its bids. The respondent herein is one of the Directors of that Company. The bids of the Company were found to be highest in respect of Naini Toll Plaza and Tundla Toll Plaza and the contract was awarded to the said Company.
On complaint filed by another competitor alleging that the Company had submitted wrong information qua its net worth in the tender documents submitted by it, a show cause notice was issued on 18th March, 2003 to the Company as well as its Directors including the respondent as to why the Company and the Directors be not debarred from pre-qualification, participating or bidding for future project of/or to be undertaken by the NHAI either directly in the name of the Company or indirectly in any other name or in association/joint venture/or with any other name or entity with which the Company chooses to carry on their business. Since no reply was received, another notice was issued on 22nd April, 2013 granting a last opportunity for this purpose. This time, the Company filed reply dated 25th April, 2013. The appellants, after considering the show cause notice passed orders dated 30th July, 2013 debarring the Company and its Directors including the respondent herein for a period of two years.
Challenging this order, the respondent has filed civil writ petition no. 49861 of 2013 in which the impugned orders have passed as mentioned above.
The writ petition is still pending in the High Court of Allahabad. Along with the writ petition, the respondent had also filed application seeking interim relief. In this application, impugned orders dated 30th September, 2013 have been passed directing that pending disposal of the writ petition, the appellants be permitted to participate in the future tender processes floated by the appellant Authority in future. The primary challenge led to the aforesaid order is that it amounts to giving final relief to the respondent at the interim stage itself which is not permissible.
When this matter had come up for hearing on 29th October, 2013, while issuing notice in the SLP, following order was passed:-
"Taken on board.
Mr. Parag P. Tripathi, learned senior counsel submits that under the garb of interim order, the final relief which could have been granted at the time of final disposal of the writ petition has been granted by the High Court, issue notice.
In the meanwhile, there shall be stay of the operation of the impugned judgment"
It is clear from the above that the operation of the impugned order passed by the High Court has been stayed with the aforesaid orders. It is the submission by learned counsel for the respondent that the impugned order is passed after taking into consideration all the relevant factors and even if one has to discount the so called misrepresentations made by the Company in submitting the tenders in respect of the projects mentioned above, it would not have made any difference to the award of the contract.
These are the issues which have to be taken into consideration by the High Court at the time of hearing of the petition filed by the respondent. We are in agreement with the learned counsel for the appellants that granting of such order amounts to giving final relief. However, at the same time, since the order visits the respondent herein with civil and/or evil consequences, we are of the opinion that the main writ petition itself be heard by the High Court at an early date. We thus dispose of this appeal by requesting the High Court to decide the writ petition finally on merits within a period of two months from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order. Till that time, the orders dated 29th October, 2013 passed by this Court shall remain in force.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Learned Registrar of the High Court is directed to place this order before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of the High Court for constituting appropriate Bench so that the matter is heard and disposed of within the time indicated above.
We make it clear that we have not made any comments on the merits of the case.
.....................J. (Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN) .....................J. (A.K. SIKRI) NEW DELHI FEBRUARY 21, 2014.
ITEM NO.54 Court No.4 SECTION XI
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).33606/2013 (From the judgement and order dated 30/09/2013 in CMWP No.49861/2013 of The HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD) NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA &OR Petitioner(s) VERSUS NEERAJ UPADHYAY Respondent(s) (With prayer for interim relief and office report) Date: 21/02/2014 This Petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE B.S. CHAUHAN HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI For Petitioner(s) Mr. Parag P. Tripathi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Tavinder Sidhu, Adv.
Ms. Pallavi Mohan, Adv.
Ms. Gunjan Jain, Adv.
Mr. Ganesh Kamath, Adv.
Ms. Monisha Handa, Adv.
for M/S. M.V. Kini & Associates,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Pramod Dayal, Adv.
Mr. Nikunj Dayal, Adv.
Ms. Payal Dayal, Adv.
Mr. Nageshwar Pandey, Adv.
Mr. S.P. Upadhyay, Adv.
Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, Adv.
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order.
| (DEEPAK MANSUKHANI) |(M.S. NEGI) |
| Court Master | Assistant Registrar |
(Signed order is placed on the file)