In Public Function Matters Like Electricity Supply No Ex Parte Stay Must Be Given, Vacation Plea Must Be Decided Expeditiously: Rajasthan HC

The Jaipur bench of the Rajasthan High Court ruled that in matters that affect supply of public services like electricity to the consumers in the State, ordinarily ex-parte interim order ought not to be granted, and even if it was granted, the application for vacating the stay is required to be considered expeditiously.The observation came in appeal filed against a June 25 interim order of the Vacation Judge wherein an ex-parte interim stay was granted in favour of respondent no. 1 Somi Conveyors Beltings Limited, restraining the appellant Rajasthan Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited from issuing work order to the lowest bidder–respondent no. 2 NRC Industries Private Limited for supply of conveyer belts which is essential for supplying electricity in the state. In doing so, the court observed that procurement of conveyor belts–which it noted had been delayed by six months, is absolutely essential to ensure continuous supply of coal leading to production of electricity and uninterrupted supply thereof to the consumers in the State. It said that it was unfortunate that the appellant which carried out "public functions" had to run from pillar to post just to get his plea for vacation of stay considered. A division bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Ashutosh Kumar in its order said, "Present is an intra-court appeal and therefore, it is clearly maintainable. It is unfortunate that the appellant, which is a Corporation enjoined with public functions for supply and distribution of electricity which is running from pillar to post only to seek indulgence on its application for vacating stay. The learned Vacation Judge passed an ex parte interim order on 25.06.2024. Though the appellants filed an application for vacating stay on 10.07.2024, the application remained pending despite requests made so much so that the appellants had to approach this Court by filing appeal against the exparte interim order".The court noted that while initially it was not inclined to decide the appeal on merits because the application for vacation of stay was pending consideration; the court had disposed of the appeal with a request to the Single Judge to decide the application for vacation of stay expeditiously. However, the court said that since the application has not been decided, the appellants had again sought the court's indulgence. The bench then said that once an ex-parte interim order passed and as soon as the application for vacating stay is filed, the application is required to be decided one way or the other "expeditiously and it cannot be allowed to remain pending for a long time"."It is relevant to note here that in the present case, the respondent/writ petitioner has challenged award of contract in the matter of procurement of conveyor belts. Learned counsel for the appellants has rightly brought to the notice of this Court that timely procurement of conveyor belts is absolutely essential to ensure continuous supply of coal leading to production of electricity and uninterrupted supply thereof to the consumers in the State. Therefore, in such matters, ordinarily ex-parte interim order ought not to have been granted and even it was granted, the application for vacating stay was required to be considered expeditiously or the writ petition itself ought to have been decided finally. We find that the interim order passed on 10.06.2024 has remained operative which is resulting in delay in procurement of conveyor belts," the court underscored. It was the case of the appellants that the award of letter of intent in favour of the lowest bidder was challenged by the respondent no. 1 by way of a writ petition in which the Vacation judge passed the interim order without hearing the appellants and without material facts brought to its notice. An application for vacating this stay was filed by the appellants before a single judge of the Court which was not heard despite repeated prayer. Hence, appeal was filed before the division bench of the Court.The counsel for the appellants argued that the case pertained to awarding work order for supply of conveyer belts which were very essential for transportation of coal to boiler in thermal plant. Owing to the stay order and failure on part of the appellants to procure the conveyer belts would lead to stoppage of thermal power production, obstructing the supply of electricity in the State which would be contrary to public interest. However, the appellant contended, the Single judge failed to appreciate that the Vacation Judge should not have passed the stay without hearing the appellants. Appellants also relied on the Supreme Court case of N.G. Projects Ltd. v Vinod Kumar Jain & Ors. (2022) to argue that it had been reiterated by the Apex Court that in matter of public projects, injunction should not be granted lightly. It was thus argued that that even after filing an application for vacating stay, the appellant's application has not been heard...

In Public Function Matters Like Electricity Supply No Ex Parte Stay Must Be Given, Vacation Plea Must Be Decided Expeditiously: Rajasthan HC

Nupur Agrawal

Tags