DARCL LOGISTICS LTD Vs. GAIL [INDIA] LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. PJ Saikia, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. A.K. Das, learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) THIS is an intra -court appeal filed by the writ petitioner of W.P.(C) No.535 of 2013 under Rule 2(3) of Chapter V -A of the Gauhati High Court Rules against the order dated 30.7.2013 passed by the Single Judge in abovementioned writ petition. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition and declined to grant any relief to the appellant (writ petitioner). So the short question which arises for consideration in this writ appeal is whether learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant? The dispute involved in the case relates to award of contract for the work ''Transportation of Naptha from GAIL, Lakwa to M/s Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd., Haldia '' by the respondent No.1, a Govt. of India Company - GAIL. Since 100% of the contract was not awarded to appellant but 50% was awarded to Respondent No.6 by the Respondent No.1 and hence the appellant unsuccessfully challenged the non award of 100% contract to them and award of 50% to Respondent No.6 by the Respondent No.1 by filing the writ petition out of which this appeal arises before the writ court and having failed in the writ court which dismissed their writ petition filed this appeal against dismissal of their writ petition.

(3.) IF that be so, then in our view, this Court would not consider proper to entertain the appeal and exercise discretion in contractual matter at such a belated stage. It is apart from the fact that the learned Single Judge found no merit in the grievance raised by the appellant in the writ petition. In other words, even if we were to go into the grievance of appellant on merits in this appeal and find some merit therein, yet we may not be able to issue any effective writ/order/directions of any nature against the respondents jointly or/and severally in the light of subsequent development which occurred pending this litigation in relation to contract in question. We, therefore, find no merit in the appeal which fails and is hereby dismissed in limine on this short but material ground having bearing over the subject matter of appeal. Before parting with the case, we consider it appropriate to mention that dismissal of this appeal would not come in the way of the appellant in participating in future in any tender process as and when invited by Respondent No.1 for any work. No cost.