Introduction:

In a recent case, the Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court dealt with the appeal filed against an ex-parte interim order passed by the Vacation Judge, which restrained the Rajasthan Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (RVVNL) from issuing a work order to the lowest bidder, NRC Industries Private Limited, for the supply of essential conveyor belts. These belts are crucial for the uninterrupted supply of electricity in the state, as they are used in the transportation of coal to thermal power plants. The respondent, Somi Conveyors Beltings Limited, challenged the award of the contract, leading to the interim stay that disrupted the procurement process. The court’s ruling on the appeal brought to light important aspects regarding the issuance of interim orders in public service matters, particularly when the larger public interest is at stake.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The appellants, RVVNL, argued that the ex-parte interim stay granted by the Vacation Judge was improper, particularly in a matter that had far-reaching consequences on the public service. The conveyor belts in question were critical to ensuring the continuous supply of coal to thermal plants, which, in turn, was essential for power generation and maintaining electricity supply to the state’s consumers. The appellants emphasized that without the timely procurement of these belts, there could be a serious disruption in the electricity production process, which would affect the public at large. They contended that the Vacation Judge had passed the interim stay without hearing the appellants’ side and that the delay in resolving the stay application had led to a six-month delay in the procurement process. This delay, according to the appellants, was adversely affecting the efficiency of power generation and supply in the state.

Furthermore, the appellants referenced the Supreme Court’s ruling in N.G. Projects Ltd. v. Vinod Kumar Jain & Ors. (2022), where it was emphasized that the granting of injunctions in public service matters should be avoided, especially when such an order could disrupt critical public infrastructure and services. The appellants argued that the Vacation Judge’s order was causing unnecessary delays, and the application for vacating the stay had not been heard despite multiple requests. The appellants further pointed out that the respondent had not provided any valid reasons why the work order should not be granted to NRC Industries, which was the lowest bidder for the contract.

On the other hand, the respondent, Somi Conveyors Beltings Limited, contended that the appellants should not have sought the appellate court’s intervention but should have pressed for a decision on the application for vacating the stay before the Single Judge. The respondent argued that the appeal against the interim order was not maintainable under Rule 134 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952, as it was not a final order. They further claimed that NRC Industries was not eligible to receive the contract as it failed to meet certain criteria, including not being declared an NTPC-approved vendor during any of the last three financial years.

The respondent’s position was that the appellants’ repeated requests for indulgence by the appellate court were improper. The focus, according to the respondent, should have been on resolving the stay application before the Single Judge, as per the due process.

Court’s Judgment:

The Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, consisting of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Ashutosh Kumar, observed that the case involved the supply of conveyor belts that were critical to the uninterrupted supply of electricity, a public service vital to the state. The court emphasized that in matters affecting public service, particularly when such services impact the daily lives of consumers, ex-parte interim orders should ordinarily not be granted unless absolutely necessary. Even if such orders are granted, the application for vacation of stay should be considered expeditiously to avoid unnecessary delays in critical processes.

The court noted that the appellants had filed an application for vacation of the stay on July 10, 2024, but despite this, the application remained pending without being heard. The appellants had been forced to approach the court via an appeal against the ex-parte interim order. The bench criticized the delay in considering the application for vacation of the stay, particularly in light of the fact that the procurement of the conveyor belts had already been delayed by six months, which was affecting the timely supply of coal and, consequently, the production of electricity.

The court emphasized that the appellant, which is a public functionary responsible for providing electricity, had been running from pillar to post to get its plea for vacation of stay considered. It stated that once an ex-parte interim order is passed, and an application for vacation of stay is filed, the application must be decided promptly. Prolonged delay in such matters would result in a situation where the interim order effectively becomes a final order, impacting public interests.

The court also highlighted that the respondent’s challenge to the award of the contract for the conveyor belts was disrupting the public service process. The court referred to the N.G. Projects case, where the Supreme Court had stated that any contract involving public service should not be interfered with lightly, especially when such interference could derail the process of providing essential services to the public. The court underscored that the interim stay was not only affecting the procurement process but also impacting the timely delivery of electricity to the consumers.

In light of these considerations, the court directed that the writ petition challenging the award of the contract be decided expeditiously by the Single Judge within one month. The bench made it clear that no adjournments should be granted, and the decision should be final. The court further stated that the interim order would lose its efficacy either at the expiration of one month or upon the final decision of the writ petition, whichever occurred first. The appeal was partly allowed, and the matter was directed to be disposed of quickly to ensure that public services were not further hindered.

Conclusion:

The Rajasthan High Court’s judgment in this case highlights the importance of prioritizing public service interests, especially when essential services like electricity supply are involved. The court’s decision underscores that while judicial review is an important tool, it must be exercised with caution in matters that affect public infrastructure and services. The judgment calls for a timely and fair resolution of stay applications to avoid unnecessary delays in critical public projects. In this case, the court rightly intervened to ensure that public services, such as the supply of electricity, were not disrupted by avoidable judicial delays. The court’s emphasis on expeditious decision-making serves as a reminder that in cases involving public interest, the efficiency of the judicial process is paramount.