- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The controversy sought, but, at the same time, a far reaching consequence because of the reason that in a case where the petitioner preferred a writ petition against the termination of the agreement entered into with it by the Transport Department of Government of Jharkhand for supply and affixing of High Security Registration Plates, the petitioner's application for interim relief, I.A. No. 2701 of 2012 was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 25.9.2012. Against this order dated 25.9.2012, the petitioner preferred L.P.A. No. 424 of 2012 wherein the petitioner-appellant's contention was that his prayer for safeguarding the interest of the petitioner-appellant was not considered by the learned Single Judge. The Division Bench of this Court (us) observed that from the impugned order it is not clear that such argument was raised, or if raised, that facts and position can be clarified only in review jurisdiction. Observing so, the petitioner-appellant's L.P.A. No. 424 of 2012 was dismissed vide order dated 8.10.2012. The petitioner-appellant challenged the above said orders dated 25.9.2012 and 8.10.2012 by preferring S.L.P. (Civil) No. 31556 of 2012 which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 16.10.2012. In backdrop of these facts, when the respondent issued another N.I.T. Dated 5.9.2012, the petitioner sought to challenge that action of the respondent by filing the I.A. but the respondent, then, decided to cancel the N.I.T. Dated 5.9.2012 and again issued the tender notice dated 8.11.2012. In pursuance of such tender notice dated 8.11.2012, the same contract, which was earlier awarded to the petitioner, was awarded to M/s. Rosemarta Technologies Limited. Finding this situation, the petitioner moved an application being I.A. No. 359 of 2013 and prayed that said M/s. Rosemarta Technologies Limited may be impleaded as party respondent no. 4 in the writ petition. The petitioner also sought relief of quashing and setting aside the award of work for supply and affixing of High Security Registration Plates to the Respondent No. 4. The petitioner, in this I.A. No. 359 of 2013, took new pleas appropriate in changed situation so as to challenge the award of the contract to the Respondent party sought to be impleaded. The said application (I.A. No. 359 of 2013) was heard by the learned Single Judge and has been dismissed, hence, this L.P.A. has been preferred by the petitioner-appellant.
(2.) Learned Senior Advocate Shri Jitendra Singh, assisted by Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, Advocate for the appellant vehemently submitted that the impleading of the party was essential to safeguard the interest of the plaintiff-petitioner. The party sought to be impleaded became necessary party because of the subsequent development and the event occurred during the pendency of the writ petition. It is also submitted that the petitioner is claiming his right under the contract and is challenging the termination of his contract and he can get the relief only if no other is given such contract. In this case, only because of the cancellation of the contract of the petitioner, the respondent could invite a fresh tender and in response to which, the new party came in picture. If the termination order of the petitioner's contract is set aside, then, naturally, the respondents, who got the contract during pendency of the writ petition may or may not have a right to hearing but he is bound to adversely affected party, therefore, it is essential for the petitioner to implead the new party in this petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Single Judge also committed grave error of law as the learned Single Judge, on assumption, that when the interim order is not passed in favour of the writ petitioner, the petitioner is not entitled to get the final relief, which is apparent from the findings given by the learned Single Judge in Para-4. In that view of the fact, and if that view is accepted, then also, the new party is necessary party because of the reason that without the presence of the necessary party, who will get the benefit of the contract under the new N.I.T., is required to be heard before holding that in view of the earlier award of the contract, which has been illegally terminated, subsequently awarded contract will not have any effect. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that even in a case where the prayer for interim relief is denied by specific and speaking order, even then, in that situation, the writ petition of the petitioner cannot be dismissed on the ground of refusal of the interim prayer.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court delivered in the cases of Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia Versus Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar and Another, 1963 AIR(SC) 786; State of W.B. & Others Versus Shivananda Pathak and Others, 1998 5 SCC 513; Ram Kumar Barnwal Versus Ram Lakhan, 2007 5 SCC 660 and Prabodh Verma and Others Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, 1984 4 SCC 251.;