SIMANCHAL PADHY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the aforesaid cases being analogous were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) O .J.C. No. 706 of 2001 and O.J.C. No. 784 of 2001 are two writ petitions which have been filed by way of public interest litigations. The petitioner- Simachal Padhy is a practising lawyer at Bhawanipatna. His grievance in both the writ petitions is that the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhawanipatna without keeping the public interest in view illegally granted injunction against the State of Orissa and its officials restraining them from proceeding with the construction work of earth dams. He has accordingly prayed for quashing of the said order with a further direction that the construction work should be allowed to proceed forthwith. Civil Revision No. 447 of 2000 filed at the instance of the State of Orissa and its officials is directed against the order of the learned District Judge, Kalahandi dated 30.9.2000 passed in M.J.A. No. 11 of 2000 confirming the order dated 12.5.2000 of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhawanipatna in M.J.C. No. 16 of 2000 arising out of Title Suit No. 19 of 2000. Civil Revision No. 496 of 2000 filed on behalf of the State of Orissa and its officials is directed against the order dated 13.11.2000 of the District Judge, Kalahandi in M.J.A. No. 13 of 2000 confirming the order dated 25.8.2000 of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhawanipatna in M.J.C. No. 35 of 2000 arising out of Title Suit No. 46 of 2000.

(3.) LET us now therefore proceed to consider the validity of the orders impugned in both the civil revisions : The opposite party-Subhash Chandra Panda filed Title Suit No. 19 of 2000 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhawanipatna for perpetual injunction against the petitioners (State of Orissa and its officials) restraining them from executing any work in respect of tender call notice No. 1/1000-2000 and from making any payment in respect of the said work. His further prayer in the suit was that the petitioner should evaluate all the bids afresh submitted by him and others. Along with the plaint, he filed a petition under Section 80(2), C.P.C. for exemption of notice required under Section 80(1), C.P.C. He also filed M.J.C. No. 14 of 2000 under Order 39, Rule 1, C.P.C. to restrain the petitioners from executing work undertaken pursuant to the aforesaid tender notice. The Civil Judge by order dated 4.4.2000 allowed the opposite party's petition under Section 80(2), C.P.C. and admitted the suit. On 5.4.2000 he passed and ad interim injunction order in M.J.C. No. 14 of 2000 directing to maintain status quo in respect of construction work. After receipt of notice, the petitioners appeared on 11.5.2000 and filed written statement and counters to the petition under Section 80(3), C.P.C. and to the petition under Order 32, Rule 1, C.P.C. The Civil Judge allowed the M.J.C. No. 14 of 2000 by making the ad interim order absolute and directed the petitioners not to take any action or proceed relating to the construction work in respect of the concerned tender call notice. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners filed appeal (M.J.A. No. 11/2000) before the District Judge, Kalahandi who by order dated 30.9.2000 dismissed the appeal. Hence the civil revision. The dispute in the suit relates to short tender call notice No. 1/1999-2000 issued by the Executive Engineer, Kalahandi Irrigation Division, Bhawanipatna for the following work :