(1.) Heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, so also appearing for the first respondent and learned Government Pleader for respondents 2 to 4.
(2.) It is necessary to put on record relevant facts that led to the present situation:
(3.) However, the learned Single Judge opining that it is only a limited relief, directed the 2nd respondent, the Director of Ports, to consider Ext. P6 representation and pass appropriate orders, after giving an opportunity to 5th respondent, Mr. Beeru, the writ petitioner in the present writ petition. Ext. P9 is the result of directions issued at Ext. P6 wherein the Director of Ports by order dated 22/06/2013 after discussing the entire material thread bare opined, accepting the tender as recommended by the tender committee would result in loss amounting to lakhs of rupees as the material involves 60,000 tons of sand which became better quality after being washed in rains with the removal of dust etc. While considering Ext. P9, the recommendation of the committee referred to at Ext. P3 also came to be considered, therefore, Ext. P9 reflects compliance of not only the direction issued by the Court at Ext. P6 but also deciding approval of confirmation of bid as indicated in the tender document at Ext. P1.