(1.) THE appellant is aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge dated 17-9-04 in WPMP no. 32029/04 in WP No. 26337/04 in and by which the learned Judge in effect has vacated the earlier order of stay granted in favour of the petitioner as against the award of the contract dated 24-6-2004 in favour of the 5th respondent by the 3rd and 4th respondents.
(2.) THE main grievance of the petitioner, while moving the application for stay was that in the earlier year, (i. e.) 1999, on behalf of the 5th respondent a communication was addressed to the 2nd respondent herein, which is stated to have contained the signature of the 5th respondent and that when the said signature was compared with the present signature of the 5th respondent contained in the counter affidavit filed in this Court, it discloses complete variance in the signature and in the circumstances, the 5th respondent would not have been the real contractor and somebody else was impersonating the 5th respondent. Though initially interim stay was granted only on that basis by the learned Judge on 14-9-2004, by the present order dated 17-9-2004 the learned Judge on being satisfied that the 5th respondent himself was very much concerned with the contract granted in his favour, by making even his presence in the court and also the affidavits filed by the 3rd and 4th respondent, who awarded the contract in favour of the 5th respondent, thought it fit not to continue the stay, as otherwise that would work against public interest.
(3.) MR. T. R. Rajagopalan, learned Senior counsel would vehemently contend that when such a glaring difference in the signature of the 5th respondent weighed with the learned single Judge while granting interim stay, unless that factum was satisfactorily explained, the interim order granted on 14-9-2004 ought not to have been vacated. The learned Senior Counsel would, therefore, contend that the order of the learned single judge in vacating the interim order without any justifiable reason is liable to be interfered with.