- (1.) IN I. A. 2702/2012, the petitioner has prayed for addition of prayer and certain statements for amendment in the writ petition. It has been stated that during pendency of the writ petition, the Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Transport Department, Government of Jharkhand has issued Order No. 923 dated 4.9.2012 (Annexure-18) whereby the petitioner's joint venture has been debarred from participating in any tender process in the State of Jharkhand for five years. The said order is in succession of the earlier order by which the petitioner's contract has been terminated. In the writ petition, the termination order has been challenged.
(2.) IT has been submitted that the amendment prayed for is based on the same factual foundation, as made in the writ petition. The amendment prayed for is intended to bring on record the subsequent events in the same matter and, if allowed, it would not change the nature / character of the writ petition. The amendment prayed for is also required for avoiding multiplicity of litigations between the same parties. The petitioner's said prayer has been opposed by the respondents by filing reply. It has been stated, inter alia, that the impugned order is proper and legal and there is no point to challenge the same. The said prayer has been made without any ground and the same is not fit to be allowed. In I. A. No. 2701/2012, the petitioner has prayed for stay of operation of the impugned Order No. 923 dated 4.9.2012. It has been stated that the impugned order is wholly arbitrary and illegal and the same has been passed without informing any reason to the petitioner and without giving any opportunity of representation or hearing to the petitioner. The impugned order is highly prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner. Operation of the impugned order is, thus, required to be stayed, during pendency of the writ petition.
(3.) THE respondents have opposed the petitioner's prayer stating, inter alia, that while replying to the earlier notice, the petitioner had every opportunity to defend itself and it cannot be said that there was no opportunity to the petitioner to defend before the impugned order was issued. The impugned order is legal and valid and the petitioner is not entitled to get any interim relief, as prayed for. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the facts and material on record. It is an admitted position that the impugned Order No. 923 dated 4.9.2012 has been issued, during pendency of the writ petition and it appears to be issued in the process subsequently. The amendment prayed for is based on the factual foundation, as has been made in the writ petition. I find substance in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that by allowing the proposed amendment, multiplicity of litigations between the same parties can be avoided.;