HOSSAIN AHMED Vs. H. D HOSSAIN AND BROTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order of the High Court Division in Civil Revision No. 1195 of 1979.

(2.) Defendants are the appellants. The Divisional Tender Committee with the Additional Divisional Commissioner, as the Chairman invited tenders for appointment of the labour and transport contractor for Dewanhat and Halishahar C.S.D. for the year 1979-80. The Tender Committee accepted the tender of the appellant for both Dewanhat and Halishahar C. S. D. This was challenged by the respondents in the civil court. Three suits were filed by different tenderers being O. S. No. 179 of 1979 and O.S. No. 164 of 1979 both in the Court of 2nd Munsif, Chittagong and third suit being O.S. No. 119 of 1979 was instituted in the 1st Court of Munsif, Chittagong. In all the suits prayer for declaration was made that the acceptance of the tender of the appellant was illegal and without jurisdiction. The present appeal arises out of the Suit No. 179 of 1979. In the meantime this Court in dismissing Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 273 of 1979 arising out of O.S. NO. 164 of 1979 observed: Mr. Serajul Huq, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners argued that the instructions which have been given for the guidance of Tender Committee were not complied with, as such, plaintiffs could legitimately challenge the legality of the acceptance of the invalid tender of defendant No. 5 and pray for injunction. The argument is not tenable. Had there been any breach of the rule or regulation or any instruction having statutory force, the plaintiffs could very well ask for a decree, with the appropriate declaration but filing of a suit on the facts of this case for declaration that the acceptance of the tender of their rival was illegal is not by itself a sufficient ground for maintenance of the suit and such a suit would not entitle the plaintiffs for claiming injunction, inasmuch as, neither any right accrued to them nor any right of theirs require protection. Nothing inheres in them yet because no deal was concluded so far they are concerned for non observance of the regulation. Their remedy, if any, is for damages if they can make out a case for damages, bur the prayer for injunction was erroneous inasmuch as no right of theirs was threatened."

(3.) In the present case arising out of the Suit No. 179 of 1979 the learned Munsif by his order dated 1.8.79 directed the parties to maintain status quo. As against the order an appeal being Misc. Appeal No 366 of 1979 was filed before the district judge. The learned District Judge by his order dated 21.9.79 stayed the operation of the ad interim order of the learned Munsif till the disposal of the appeal. As against the order the plaintiff moved the High Court Division and obtained Rule in Civil Revision No. 1195 of 1979. The High Court Division stayed the operation of the order of the learned District Judge passed in the aforesaid Miscellaneous Appeal No, 366 of 1979. This order was challenged before this Court and leave was granted on the terms whether in view of sections 24, 54 and 56 of the Specific Relief Act the plaintiff respondents were entitled to any relief by way of interlocutory injunction in their suits and whether the High Court Division was correct in exercising its jurisdiction in granting stay of the operation of the order passed by the learned District Judge which had effect of injunction the petitioner and the respondents 3-5 from performing their contractual obligations.