Summary
Unreasoned interim status-quo orders preventing execution of completed warehouse tenders were set aside. Although the Supreme Court ordinarily avoids interference with interim orders, the restraints followed dismissal of the writ petitions, affected State revenue and impeded food-storage contracts without recorded reasons. The merits of the tender conditions remained for the High Court; any contract granted would remain subject to its final orders.
Issues
- Whether unreasoned interim restraints on execution of warehouse contracts warranted interference.
- How public interest and the pending tender challenge affected interim relief.
Held
- Ordinary restraint in interfering with interim orders under Article 136 did not prevent intervention where an unreasoned stay after dismissal of the writ petitions affected State revenue and public interest. (¶ 8)
- Courts considering interim relief in contractual matters must weigh competing public interests and the consequences of delay, including provision for restitution where appropriate. (¶ 9)
- After completion of bidding, the undertaking was entitled to obtain work from successful bidders rather than continue emergency short-term arrangements. The unreasoned restraint was contrary to public interest, especially for storage of food articles in State-undertaking warehouses. (¶¶ 10, 11)
- The Court expressed no view on the merits of the tender challenge pending before the High Court. Contracts granted would remain subject to orders in the pending intra-court appeals. (¶¶ 10, 13)
Result
Appeals allowed; status-quo orders dated 29 May and 10 June 2020 set aside. Grant of contracts remains subject to the High Court’s orders in pending intra-court appeals.