Joydev Bag and ors. Vs. Dr. Sudhir Kumar Ghosh and ors.

.....documents was duly satisfied in the appellant's case. mr. salve urged that the bid documents submitted by the appellant fully satisfy the aforesaid tests and the rejection of the appellant's bid was unlawful and cannot be sustained. qualify certification - the company/one of the partners of consortium (in case of consortium) should have an active iso 9001:2000 certification at the time of submission of the bid. the aforesaid paragraph indicates that a copy of the quality certificate/document of quality policy would have to be submitted along with the bid documents, with the relaxation that in case the quality certificate was due for renewal, the bidder should ensure that the renewed certificate was made available at the time of signing of the contract. "8. bidder should have active iso 9001:2000 certification at the time of submission of bids. the bidder/lead partners of consortium (in case of consortium) should have an active (valid at least till june 2010) iso 9001:2000 certification at the time of submission of the bid. the above provision obliges a tenderer to produce along with the bid document a copy of the quality certificate which is valid and active on the date of submission of the bid and it does not enable a bidder to withhold the copy of such quality certificate. the appellant claimed to have a valid and active iso 9001:2000 certificate at the time of submission of the bid, but did not produce a copy of the said certificate along with the bid document.1. instead of disposal of the application for stay, we propose to hear out the appeal itself by treating it as on days list. this appeal is at the instance of some of the defendants in a suit for declaration and injunction and is directed against an order dated 17th march, 2011, passed by a learned single judge of this court, by which his lordship directed the receiver to take immediate possession of all the medicines and goods at the medicine shop with a further direction to shut down the nursing home within a specified period after being satisfied that there is no operation scheduled immediately. 2. it appears that this order was passed on 17th march, 2011 when the appellants before us did not enter appearance. as this order is an interim order appointing receiver over the business of the plaintiffs themselves and the defendants have not yet entered appearance and the main application for appointment of receiver is yet to be heard on merit, we are not inclined to entertain this appeal at this stage. 3. the appellants before us will be free to file written objection to the application for appointment of receiver and will also be free to pray for variation of interim order if they so desire. having regard to the nature of allegation and taking into consideration the fact that the plaintiffs are the owner of the nursing home and are required to comply with various statutory formalities, we do not find any illegality or impropriety in the order impugned having regard to the nature of the right claimed by the defendants. 4. we thus dismiss this appeal. in view of dismissal of this appeal, the connected application has become in fructuous and the same is disposed of accordingly. photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.