- (1.) REFERENCE may be made to the order dated 26.6.2008 which reads as under: - "This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 14.5.2008 petition giving liberty to the petitioner -appellant to file suit for damages. passed in W.P.(C) No. 4830/2007 whereby the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ In the writ petition the petitioner challenged the decision of the respondents by which the tender for supply of complete system of Centralised Liquid Medical Oxygen with medical gas pipe line was allotted to Respondent NO.5. The learned Single Judge found that Respondent NO.5 was a proprietorship firm carrying on business of distribution of medical, surgical, pharmaceutical goods and equipments etc. and had no experience whereas the appellant has vast experience in doing the said work. Although, learned Single Judge observed that the decision making process by which work order was given to Respondent No. 5 was not proper but having regard to the fact that the work was progressed to a considerable extent, the writ petition was disposed of giving the aforesaid liberty. In course of argument, Mr. Mittal drawn our attention to the affidavit filed by the Officers of the RIMS on 28.1.2008 in Supreme Court stating that the work has been completed. In the affidavit dated 25.6.2008, after six months, stated that the entire work shall likely to be completed within 2 -3 weeks. Prima facie, it appears that either of the two affidavits is false. Since the matter has been remitted back by the Supreme Court to decide the writ petition on merit within three months which already expired in June, 2008, we adjourn the case to 3rd July, 2008. In the meantime, counsel for the appellant shall serve copy of the memo of appeal to the counsel appearing for the Respondent NO.5 in the writ petition. In addition to that, notice may also be served by special messenger. In the meantime, we constitute One Man Committee of Mr. Aparesh Kumar Singh, Advocate, who is directed to visit the work site and to submit a report with regard to the extent of work completed or is at the verge of completion, according to work order. The authority of RIMS shall give full assistance and cooperation to Mr. Singh while inspecting the work site. He is directed to visit on 29.6.2008 and submit report by 1 st July, 2008. Let a copy of this order be handed over to Mr. Aparesh Kumar Singh, Advocate."
(2.) PURSUANT to the aforesaid order Mr. Aparesh Kumar Singh, learned Advocate submitted an exhaustive report. In the concluding paragraph he has reported that the Main Liquid Oxygen Gas Tank of the required specification has not been installed. He also reported that a separate three phase electric supply system for commissioning of the project has not yet been installed. Mr. Singh was informed by the representative of the respondent no. 5 that the oxygen tank is on transit from Bangalore and the same may be reached within a week or so subject to their being no mishaps or other difficulties in the transit. Mr. Singh, in his conclusion, stated that clearly one of the main components of the tender work from which the supply of oxygen is to be ensured uninterruptedly has not been installed. It appears that as against the work order dated 25.7.2007 issued to respondent no. 5 for supply of complete system of Centralised Liquid Medical Oxygen with medical gas pipe -line the appellant moved before this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 4203/2007 which was however dismissed on the ground that the writ petition involved disputed question of facts. We mention here that in the work order itself a condition was put that the work shall be completed within 150 days i.e. by December, 2007.
(3.) A second writ petition was filed when the representation of the petitioner was not considered being W.P.(C) No. 4830/2007. The writ petition was disposed of on' 10.9.2007 by the learned Single Judge holding that the disputed facts are involved which could not be decided by the Writ Court The said judgment of the learned Single Judge was affirmed on 10.10.2007 by the Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 319/2007. Against that the appellant moved the Supreme Court in S . L.P.(C) No. 21402/07 (Civil Appeal No. 2028/08). The Supreme Court remitted the matter to the learned Single Judge of this Court for deciding the writ petition on merit after holding that there is hardly any question of disputed facts.;