DIRECTOR GENERAL AND ANOTHER Vs. ASHOK KUMAR KHAJURIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been directed against an order passed by Sub Judge, Jammu in Civil Suit file No. 39/Misc on 18-3-1995.

(2.) Through the impugned order the trial Court has passed interim injunction in the mandatory form directing the defendant/petitioners to issue tender forms to the plaintiff/ respondents to enable them to participate in the tender proceedings of the works advertised for allotment. The respondent/plaintiffs are registered contractors with the Boarder Road Organisation. Petitioner/defendants received some information which revealed that respondent/plaintiffs executed an agreement on 22-7-1994. Under this agreement they mutually agreed to execute or cause to be executed all the contracts and deals with Chief Engineer Project Sampark from July 20,1994 to July 20, 1995, jointly. It was also agreed upon that after Pooling all the profits they would share the profits and losses equally.

(3.) On receiving such information respondent No. 2 issued an order vide No. 80057/ 502/E-8 on 10-3-1995. This order conveyed a decision that an enquiry was decided to be conducted in respect of the agreement, Pending finalisation of that enquiry/investigation issuing of tender forms to the respondent/ plaintiffs was withheld. After this order having been issued the respondents filed civil suit No. 1110 on 18-3-1995. The suit was for mandatory injunction for issuance of tender forms with further prayer of prohibitory injunction, restraining the petitioner/defendants from withholding the tender documents. The order impugned has been passed while disposing of an application for temporary injunction arising out of that suit. It will however be pertinent to place on record that another suit was filed and is sub-judice before 1st. Civil Munsiff (Forest Magistrate), Jammu. That suit seems to have been filed by some Shashi Paul. The Court in that suit seems to have passed direction to Shashi Paul, that the agreement referred to above should not be used by him. However, neither Union of India nor the petitioner/defendants have been arrayed as defendants in that suit.