Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Infinite Computer Solutions (India) ... vs Rajcomp Info Services Ltd on 19 January, 2023
Bench: Pankaj Mithal, Shubha Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 31/2023
Infinite Computer Solutions (India) Limited, Through Its
Authorized Representative, Mr. Ujjwal Vats, Having Its Registered
Office At Corporate Office - 157, Epip Zone, Phase 2,
Kundalahalli, Whitefield, Bengaluru - 560066.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Rajcomp Info Services Ltd., Through Its Managing
Director, First Floor, C-Block, Yojana Bhawan, Tilak Marg,
C-Scheme, Jaipur-302 005 (Rajasthan).
2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Chief Secretary,
Secratariat, Jaipur 302005, Rajasthan.
3. M/s Sterlite Technologies Limited, 3Rd Floor, Iffco Tower,
Plot No. 3, Sector 29, Gurgaon, Haryana - 122001, India,
Through Its Managing Director.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. R.K. Agarwal, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Divesh Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hemant Kothari on behalf of Mr. R.P. Singh, AAG HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. PANKAJ MITHAL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA Order 19/01/2023
1. The 3rd respondent was granted Letter of Intent on 08.12.2022 after its bid was found to be valid and it was declared to be successful.
2. The said Letter of Intent dated 08.12.2022 was challenged by the petitioner-appellant who was one of the competitors by filing a writ petition.
(Downloaded on 25/01/2023 at 12:08:01 AM)
(2 of 3) [SAW-31/2023]
3. The Writ Court has entertained the writ petition and has directed to issue notice to respondent No.3 and in the meantime, has permitted the petitioner to opt to proceed to pursue the alternate remedy of the statutory appeal or the second appeal as provided under law but has not granted any interim protection to the petitioner-appellant.
4. Aggrieved by the non-granting of the interim protection, the petitioner-appellant has filed this special appeal.
5. The appeal is directed against the interlocutory order which entertains writ petition of the petitioner-appellant and at the same time allows it to avail the remedy of appeal/second appeal but with no stay order. The petitioner-appellant is not entitled to stay as of right. It is not likely to be visited by civil consequences if the stay is not granted. The petitioner-appellant even otherwise can always pursue the writ petition and get it decided on merits once respondent No.3 is served and puts in appearance.
6. The submission of Shri R.K. Agarwal, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner-appellant that the learned single Judge has not considered one of his arguments that the Procuring Authority and the Appellate Authority are one and the same person.
7. We do not find that any such plea was raised and argued on behalf of the petitioner-appellant. If had been raised and not considered, the proper remedy available to the petitioner- appellant is to move an application for the review or recall of the order dated 12.01.2023, before the Writ Court itself.
8. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we do not feel inclined to entertain this appeal at this stage and the same is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner-appellant to approach the Writ Court either for review of the impugned order or for the (Downloaded on 25/01/2023 at 12:08:01 AM) (3 of 3) [SAW-31/2023] expeditious disposal of the writ petition with fresh application for any interim order, as may be advised.
9. It is expected that in case any such remedy is availed by the petitioner-appellant before the Single Judge, the same shall be taken up on priority most expeditiously.
(SHUBHA MEHTA),J (PANKAJ MITHAL),CJ
N Gandhi/LAKSHYA SHARMA /84
(Downloaded on 25/01/2023 at 12:08:01 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)