- (1.) S. C. Mohapatra, J. This is an appeal by defendants against an order of temporary injunction against them in a suit for permanent injunction.
(2.) PLAINTIFF is a partnership firm carrying on business as works con tractor. Pursuant to invitation of tender in June, 1993, it submitted a tender for the work of digging and filling of lower Rajghat canal. PLAINTIFF deposited the required earnest money and on opening of tender on 24-7-1993, it was found to have offered the lowest rate. When plaintiff was not given the work order, it has filed the suit for permanent injunction against defendants. Contractor carrying on business for profit maximum, plaintiff has lost some profit on account of breach of contract. He cannot claim damages and, accordingly, a partnership firm carrying on business of work on contract can not be said to have irreparable injury in case there is breach of contract as claimed by plaintiff. Case of defendants is that on 24-7-1993 itself tender was cancelled and there is no scope for issue of work order to plaintiff. Execution of work with profit motive is a contract. In case after inviting offers from intending person, such offer is not accepted, person suffer ing may be entitled to a damages. We fail to appreciate how the authority inviting tender can be compelled to accept the offer and permit plaintiff to work.
(3.) WHEN offers are invited, person offering does not know that his offer would be accepted. There may be circumstances, when even the lowest tender may not be accepted. Therefore, normally in matter of contract where a person carries on business for profit, temporary injunction either not to entrust the work to another or to entrust the same should not be granted unless strong exceptional case is made out in support of irreparable injury. This is not such a case and learned trial Judge has not kept the principle in mind for which impugned order has become vulnerable. Perusal of the plaint discloses that plaintiff has asserted mala fides against some officers and has also alleged political pressure not to allot the work to it. There can be no iota of doubt that executive action is to be fair and impartial in best interest of the State. If the plaintiff would have disclos ed name of the persons who acted with mala fides and in case plaintiff would have disclosed names of person who put political pressure and names of persons on whom political pressure was put, we would have directed a specific issue being settled in the suit so that partner of the plaintiff and other witnesses who would have stated facts on oath, would have faced prosecution in case learned trial Judge would have found the oath to be misutilised. Similarly, State Government which has no living mind and which acts through individual could proceeded against those officers departmentally for ill-reputing a democratic State Government by their mala fides and succumbing to political pressure if learned trial Judge would have accepted statements on oath. In case, executive Government is desirous of a clean administration for the people, of the people and by the people, we hope that partners of plaintiff shall be called upon to disclose facts within their knowledge on basis of which fair enquiry should be conducted to bring the offenders book be they Govern ment officials or plaintiff.;