- (1.) The facts giving rise to this case and also the interlocutory application bearing no. 3531 of 2014 are that after decision was taken for unbundling of the erstwhile Jharkhand State Electricity Board, the Board issued notice inviting tender for appointment of distribution franchisee for Ranchi, Jamshedpur and Dhanbad. Pursuant to that, Direct Media Distribution Ventures Pvt. Ltd., Tata Power Supply Limited as well as Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation (CESC) submitted their bid papers. In the process of finalization of the matter relating to the aforesaid tender, Direct Media Distribution Ventures Pvt. Ltd. was found to be non-responsive whereas other two aforesaid concerns were found to be responsive and thereby Tata Power Supply Limited entered into an agreement with the JSEB for distributing electricity in the area of Jamshedpur whereas CESC entered into an agreement for distributing electricity in the area of Ranchi. Being aggrieved with the decision taken by the authority of JSEB, Direct Media Distribution Ventures Pvt. Ltd. and others filed a writ application bearing W.P. (C) No. 5524/2012 challenging the decision of the authority to be mala fide. In the writ application, Tata Power Supply Limited as well as CESC were impleaded as respondents. In course of time, the Government having taken decision to cancel the tender referred the matter before the Board now Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited for taking decision in the matter. Thereupon this writ application was filed wherein prayer has been made to direct the respondents to forebear from interfering with the distribution franchisee agreement dated 5.12.2012 entered into in between the petitioner and the erstwhile JSEB. Subsequently, as per the case of the petitioner, when the petitioner did get hold of that letter dated 3.7.2014 issued by Under Secretary, Department of Energy addressed to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the Board, an interlocutory application bearing no. 3531 of 2014 was filed for quashing of the letter dated 3.7.2014.
(2.) Further prayer which has been made in the interlocutory application is that the operation of the impugned decision be stayed or the respondent be restrained from giving effect to the impugned decision.
(3.) Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State and also learned counsel appearing for the Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited as well as learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 5524 of 2012 on the matter of stay.;