The Union of India and 4 Ors v. M/S Mvvs-Pkrjv

PageoNo.#o1/3 GAHC010146632024 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oWA/246/2024o

1.THEoUNIONoOFoINDIAoANDo4oORSo THROUGHoTHEoSECRETARYoTOoTHEoGOVT.oOFoINDIA,oMINISTRYoOFo RAILWAYS,o21oRAILoBHAWAN,oRAFIoMARG,oNEWoDELHI-01 2:oTHEoGENERALoMANAGERo(CONSTRUCTION) oN.FoRAILWAY,oMALIGAON oGUWAHATI-11oDIST-oKAMRUPo(M)oASSAM 3:oTHEoCHIEFoADMINISTRATIVEoOFFICERo-3 o(CONSTRUCTION)oN.FoRAILWAYoMALIGAON oGUWAHATI-11oDIST-oKAMRUPo(M)oASSAM 4:oPFAoANDoCAOo(CONSTRUCTION) o(CONSTRUCTION)oN.FoRAILWAYoMALIGAON oGUWAHATI-11oDIST-oKAMRUPo(M)oASSAM 5:oTHEoDEPUTYoCHIEFoENGINEER/TENDER o(CONSTRUCTION)oN.FoRAILWAYoMALIGAON oGUWAHATI-11oDIST-oKAMRUPo(M)oASSAMo VERSUSo M/SoMVVS-PKRJVo COLONELoCHOWMUHANIo,oAGARTALA,oTRIPURAo(W)o799001MoREP.oBYo SHRIoMoVoVoSATYANARAYANA,oAGEDoABOUTo67YEARS,oSONoOFoLATEoM.o MUTYALAoRAO,oRESIDENToOFo6-1-136/5/A,oMEHERoNIVAS,oBALRAMo COLONY,oWALKERoTOWN,oPADMARAONAGAR,oSECUNDERABAD,oPOo MUSHEERABAD,oDISToHYDERABAD,o500020oMANAGINGoPARTNERoOFoM/S M.V.V.oSATYANARAYANA,o HAVINGoITSoREGDoOFFICEoATo673,oD.oNOo6-1-136/3M,o1SToFLOOR.oMEHERo RATNAoCOMPLEX,oBALARAMoCOLONYo,oWALKERoTOWNo,o PADMARAONAGAR,oSECUNDRABAD,oPIN-500020 Page No.# 2/3 For the Appellant(s) : Mr. H. Gupta, Central Government Counsel. : Ms. N. Chakraborty, Advocate. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. B.D. Das, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. R. Majumdar, Advocate, Ms. R. Deka, Advocate, Mr. D.N. Dutta, Advocate and Mr. L. Deka, Advocate. – BEFORE – HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY BISHNOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM

28.08.2024 (Vijay Bishnoi, CJ)

This writ appeal is filed on behalf of the appellants challenging the impugned order dated 26.06.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.3307/2024, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent herein was allowed. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that vide order dated 09.08.2024 passed in WA No.261/2024, the Division Bench of this Court has endorsed the view taken by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge in the impugned order has opined that when a constituent member of the Joint Venture submits a tender on behalf of the Joint Venture, a Power of Attorney is not required to be submitted along with the tender. It is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that in view of the fact that the view expressed by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order has been affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court, this writ appeal, preferred on behalf of the appellants, challenging the impugned order dated Page No.# 3/3

26.06.2024, is liable to be dismissed. Mr. H. Gupta, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the appellants, though not in a position to dispute the fact that a similar view expressed by the learned Single Judge in another writ petition [WP(C) No.3166/2024] has already been affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 09.08.2024 passed in WA No.261/2024, has attempted to argue that this Court, while issuing notice to the respondent on 05.08.2024, has prima facie opined that the view taken by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 26.06.2024 passed in WP(C) No.3307/2024 may not be correct. Therefore, the matter may be heard on merits. Having gone through the order dated 09.08.2024 passed by the learned Co-ordinate Bench in WA No.261/2024, we do not find any case for interference in this writ appeal. Hence, the instant writ appeal is dismissed.

JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant