Hyderabad Cricket Association Rep. by Its President and anr. Vs. C. Babu Rao and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- - 1: 18. admittedly, bcci is hosting bcci champions league 20-20 matches, at rajiv gandhi international stadium, schedule to be played on 10th, 14th, 16th, 18th, 22nd and 23rd october, 2009 and also one day international match between india and australia (day and night) to be played on 5-11-2009. to facilitate the hosting of the matches, the petitioners defendants state that bcci entered into agreement with them for making necessary security and other arrangements for the security needs of the players as well as the general public as also their convenience. 1 plaintiff ultimately succeeds in the suit, then he could well be compensated in terms of money/damages. plaintiff), even though he failed to make out any prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury that would be caused if no ad interim injunction is granted. the court below before granting ad interim injunction orders, apart from failing to look into the principles governing the grant of ad interim injunction orders, the court below also failed to look into the provisions of section 5 of the specific relief act, 1963. in such view of the matter, i am of the considered opinion that the court below in the grant of ad interim injunction in favour of respondent no. 27. the courts/judicial officers, in matters of this nature, where security arrangement are involved, before passing ad interim injunction orders, must be careful and cautious, for if any order is passed, it would have effect on the security arrangements, and by reason of permitting an unsuccessful bidder to execute the work order of providing security arrangements, any untoward incident takes place, then the people will not blame the organizers, but will blame the judiciary. when the subordinate court has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does not have or the jurisdiction though available is being exercised by the court in a manner not permitted by law and failure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned thereby, the high court may step in to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction.ordern.v. ramana, j.1. the petitioners, who are defendant nos. 1 and 2 in the suit in o.s. no. 1997 of 2009 have filed this c.r.p. aggrieved by the order dated 07-10-2009, passed by the vii additional senior civil judge, ranga reddy district, in the application in i.a. no. 1449 of 2009, granting ad interim injunction in favour of respondent no. 1 plaintiff.2. on 09-10-2009, this court while ordering notice before admission, granted interim suspension of the impugned order. today, to vacate the same, respondent no. 1 filed vacate stay petition in crpmp (sr) no. 27263 of 2009, inter alia contending that the interim suspension order has been passed by this court without appreciating the facts and law, and moved the same by way of house motion at 5.00 p.m.3. respondent no. 1 claims to be a businessman and member of hyderabad cricket association and secretary of sagar cricket club. he states that pursuant to the tender notification dated 20-09-2009 issued by the hyderabad cricket association (hereinafter referred to as 'the association', inviting tenders for contract of management of works, including gates, traffic, crowd, barricading, signages, liaison with police and security agencies for security managements (inside the stadium including parking area) and also for supply of vip chairs, carpets, white cloth and other tent house material etc., at rajiv gandhi international stadium, for the bcci champions league 20-20 matches to be played on 10th, 14th, 16th, 18th, 22nd and 23rd october 2009 and also for the one day international match to be played on 05-11-2009 in between india and australia, respondent no. 1, he purchased the tender form by paying rs. 25,000/- and submitted the same.4. the tenders having been opened by the association, he states that he having quoted rs. 10/- per rft per day, for supplying and fixing barricades at the site and rs. 350/- per day for each security guard and rs. 15/- per day for each chair, emerged as the lowest bidder among the other contending bidders. that even though respondent no. 3 defendant no. 4, quoted higher amount than the amount quoted by him, yet the petitioners defendant nos. 1 and 2 and respondent no. 2 herein, had announced respondent no. 3 defendant no. 4 as the successful bidder and issued him the work order. he states that when he questioned the issuance of work order to respondent no. 3 defendant no. 4, the association, issued letter dated 06-10-2009, informing him that his tender application has not been considered, and accordingly returned the emd amount paid by him.5. respondent no. 1 plaintiff stating that since the price quoted by him is less than price quoted by respondent no. 3 defendant no. 4 quoted, and he being the lowest tender of all the tenders received, should be awarded the contract, filed the suit o.s. no. 1977 of 2009 on the file of the court below, praying to declare the allotment of tender work in favour of respondent no. 3 defendant no. 4 as null and void by accepting the lowest tender quoted by him. along with the suit, respondent no. 1 plaintiff also filed the present application under order xxxix rules 1 and 2 c.p.c., praying to grant temporary injunction in his favour and against the defendants, restraining respondent no. 3 defendant no. 4, from arranging and supplying and fixing of barricades at the site.6. on 07-10-2009, the court below upon hearing the counsel for respondent no. 1 plaintiff on the present application, and while posting the application to 21-10-2009, granted ad interim injunction restraining respondent no. 3 defendant no. 4 from arranging and supplying and fixing of barricades at site etc., until further orders in the schedule property and as prayed for in the petition.7. questioning that order, the petitioners, who are defendant nos. 1 and 2 in the suit filed the present c.r.p.8. the learned counsel for the petitioners defendants submitted that respondent no. 3 defendant no. 4 being the lowest bidder, was given the work order for supply of security staff and fixing of barricades at the site. since respondent no. 1 plaintiff filed the suit praying to declare the contract awarded in favour of respondent no. 3 defendant no. 4 as null and void, unless and until the contract awarded in favour of respondent no. 3 defendant no. 4, is declared as null and void, respondent no. 1 plaintiff, is not entitled to grant of any relief, much less ad interim injunction order, and as such, the court below committed an error in passing the impugned ad interim injunction order, restraining the successful bidder, namely respondent no. 3 defendant no. 4 from executing the work order, and more so without looking into the provisions of section 5 of specific relief act.9. he submitted that the petitioners defendants have nothing to do with the matches that are being conducted by bcci, except to undertake such activities as are entrusted to them by bcci. since the matches are organized by bcci, and the petitioners defendants having been entrusted the duty of making elaborate security arrangements for the matches organized by bcci, the court below before granting ad interim injunction in favour of respondent no. 1 plaintiff, preventing respondent no. 3 defendant no. 4 from supplying security staff and fixing barricades at the site, ought to have considered the fact that respondent no. 3 defendant no. 4 in terms of the work order granted by the petitioners defendants, was required to make elaborate security arrangements immediately and urgently for the events, which are to be witnessed by people in larger numbers.10. he submitted that the court below without looking into whether respondent no. 1 plaintiff made out a prima facie case, whether balance of convenience lay in his favour, and whether any irreparable injury would be caused to him if respondent no. 3 defendant no. 4 is not prevented from performing the obligations under the work order, and without issuing notice of the parties to be affected, has committed a grave error in passing the impugned ad interim injunction, by operation of which, not only respondent no. 3 defendant no. 4, who has been entrusted the work of supplying security staff and putting up barricades at the site, has been restrained from doing so, but also the organizers have been put to lot of inconvenience as they have to make alternate security arrangements within a short time, which is very difficult.11. he submitted that even though against the impugned order of ad interim injunction passed under order xxxix rules 1 and 2 c.p.c., an appeal lies, but inasmuch as the court below in passing the impugned order has exceeded its jurisdiction, the petitioners defendants are entitled to maintain the present c.r.p. filed under article 227 of the constitution of india, and in support of this argument, he placed reliance on the judgment of the apex court in surya dev rai v. ram chander rai : 2003 (5) alt 19 (sc) : air 2003 sc 3044 : 2003 (5) alt 35.1 (dnsc), and prayed that the impugned order of ad interim injunction, passed by the court below being in excess of its jurisdiction, be set aside and the c.r.p. be allowed.12. before commencing his arguments, the counsel for respondent no. 1 plaintiff filed a memo withdrawing the statement made in para 11 of the affidavit filed in support of crpmp (sr) no. 27263 of 2009 that 'without appreciating the facts and law', the court has passed the interim suspension order. the said memo is placed on record.13. the learned counsel for respondent no. 1 plaintiff submitted that respondent no. 1 plaintiff having quoted less price than what respondent no. 3 defendant no. 4 had quoted for supply of security staff and fixing of barricades at the site, and he having emerged as the lowest bidder, is alone entitled to award of contract, and the petitioners defendants, are not justified in awarding the contract in favour of respondent no. 3 defendant no. 4. he submitted that the court below considering the fact that the price quoted by respondent no. 1 plaintiff is far less than the price quoted by respondent no. 3 defendant no. 4, felt that irreparable injury would be caused to respondent no. 1 plaintiff, if he is not granted the contract, and accordingly passed the impugned ad interim injunction orders, restraining respondent no. 3 defendant no. 4 from providing security staff and fixing of barricades at the site, pending disposal of the suit, and no interference is called for therewith.14. he submitted that since the impugned order of ad interim injunction, is an order passed under order xxxix rules 1 and 2 c.p.c., the remedy of the petitioners defendants is to file regular appeal, and as such, the c.r.p. filed by, them invoking the jurisdiction of this court under article 227 of the constitution of india, is not maintainable and prayed that the c.r.p. be dismissed as not maintainable, and in support of this argument, he placed reliance on the judgments of this court in r.k. agarwal v. ch. vijaya kumari : 2007 (4) alt 838 : 2007 (1) ald 491 and t. venkatacharya v. deputy commissioner of endowments, warangal : 2007 (3) alt 622 : 2007 (3) ald 136.15. heard the learned counsel for the petitioners defendants and the learned counsel for respondent no. 1 plaintiff.16. in the light of the arguments advanced, the following questions do arise for consideration in this c.r.p., namely:(1) whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the court below was justified in granting ad interim injunction in favour of respondent no. 1 plaitniff and against respondent no. 3 defendant no. 4, preventing him from supplying security staff and fixing barricades, in terms of the work order granted by the petitioners defendant nos. 1 and 2?(2) whether as against the impugned order of ad interim injunction passed by the court below under order xxxix rules 1 and 2, the petitioners defendants have to file regular appeal or are entitled to maintain the present c.r.p. on the ground that the court below has exceeded its jurisdiction in passing such an order?17. before proceeding to answer the above questions, the principles that govern the grant of ad interim injunction may be noted. grant of ad interim injunction is an equitable relief. the court before granting ad interim injunction must satisfy for itself three thins, namely (1) prima facie case; (2) irreparable injury or loss that would be caused if no interim injunction is granted; and (3) balance of convenience. if the nature of relief sought for by the parties has a bearing on public interest or affecting the public peace and order, then the courts should not grant them unless the opposite party is issued notice and heard. if the facts situation warrant grant of interim injunction orders even without issuing notice to the defendants, then the courts apart from satisfying for themselves prima facie case, irreparable injury or loss and balance of convenience, must also visualize the consequences of granting interim injunction orders and also refusing to grant interim injunction orders, and if it feels that the facts situation warrant grant of interim injunction, then the court must consider whether the party against whom an order of interim injunction is granted, can be compensated by way of subsequent interim orders, in the event he satisfies that such an order could not have been granted against him. it is in the light of these legal principles, question no. 1 has to be answered.in re question no. 1:18. admittedly, bcci is hosting bcci champions league 20-20 matches, at rajiv gandhi international stadium, schedule to be played on 10th, 14th, 16th, 18th, 22nd and 23rd october, 2009 and also one day international match between india and australia (day and night) to be played on 5-11-2009. to facilitate the hosting of the matches, the petitioners defendants state that bcci entered into agreement with them for making necessary security and other arrangements for the security needs of the players as well as the general public as also their convenience. in terms of that agreement, the petitioners defendants state that they issued tender notification for supply of security staff and fixing of barricades at the site, emerged as the lowest bidder among all the other tenderers, and in spite of his being the lowest bidder, ignoring his bid, the petitioners defendants awarded the contract work in favour of respondent no. 3 defendant no. 4, filed the suit praying for the following relief:to declare the allotment of tender work in favour of respondent no. 3 defendant no. 4 by defendant nos. 1 to 3 as null and void, by accepting the lowest tender quoted by the plaintiff for supplying and fixing of barricades at site per day at rs. 10/- rft and security guards (men) per day rs. 350/-each person, supplying and providing of chairs per day rs. 15/- each for event of bcci champions league 20-20, nine matches to be played over a period of 6 days schedule for 10th, 14th, 16th, 18th, 22nd and 23rd october, 2009 and also for international one day match day and right to be played on 5-11-2009 in between india and australia at rajiv gandhi international stadium, and to restrain defendant no. 4 from doing tender work allotted by defendant nos. 1 to 3.19. pending disposal of the suit, respondent no. 1 plaintiff, filed the present application under order xxxix, rules 1 and 2 c.p.c., praying to grant the following relief:temporary injunction in his favour and against the defendants, restraining respondent no. 3 defendant no. 4, from arranging and supplying and fixing of barricades at the site per day at rs. 8/- per sft and security guards (men) per day at rs. 650/- for each person, supplying and providing of chairs per day at rs. 35/- each for even of bcci champions league 20-20 matches to be played on 10th, 14th, 16th, 18th, 22nd and 23rd october 2009 and also for the one day international match to be played on 5-11-2009 in between india and australia.20. on 7-10-2009, the court below upon hearing the counsel for respondent no. 1 plaintiff passed ad interim injunction order in favour of respondent no. 1 plaintiff and against the petitioners defendants and respondent no. 3 defendant no. 4, which reads as follows:upon mention made unto this court by sri m.a.k. mukheed, counsel for the petitioner and upon perusing the affidavit of the said petition and material papers in support thereof this court doth order that ad interim injunction restraining respondent no. 4 from interfering in arranging and supplying and fixing of barricades at sit etc., until further orders in the schedule property and as prayed for in the petition:schedule of propertywithin the premises including parking area of rajiv gandhi cricket stadium, visakha cricket ground, uppal, ranga reddy district.the case stands posted to 21-10-2009.21. though respondent no. 1 plaintiff claims that he is the lowest bidder of all the tenderers, the same is disputed by the petitioners defendants, and it is the specific case of the petitioners defendants, that it is not respondent no. 1 plaintiff, but respondent no. 3 defendant no. 4, who is lowest bidder, and that respondent no. 3 defendant no. 4 being the lowest bidder, the contract work was awarded to him.22. be that as it may, the court below without issuing any notice to the petitioners defendants and respondent no. 3 defendant no. 4, passed the ad interim injunction order, merely based on the averments made by respondent no. 1 plaintiff in the affidavit filed in support of the application that he emerged as the lowest bidder. it appears from the record that respondent no. 1 plaintiff has not placed any document to show that the petitioners defendants had allotted the work order in his favour. in fact, it is not even the case of respondent no. 1 plaintiff that he was awarded the contract by the petitioners defendants, and that despite award of contract in his favour by respondent no. 1 plaintiff, respondent no. 3 defendant no. 4, was interfering with the execution of his work. on the other hand, it is the admitted case of respondent no. 1 plaintiff, as is evident from the prayer sought by him in the suit, he was asking to declare the allotment of tender work in favour of respondent no. 3 defendant no. 4, as null and void and to accept his tender. considering the nature of relief sought for by respondent no. 1 plaintiff, unless and until the allotment of work order granted in favour of respondent no. 3-defendnat no. 4, is declared as null and void and set aside, the court below could not have granted any relief to respondent no. 1 plaintiff, much less ad interim injunction order, restraining respondent no. 3 defendant no. 4, who, the petitioners contend, is the lowest bidder, from executing the work order, and more so when the execution of the work is urgent in nature and is spread over a period of ten days, and in the event, respondent no. 1 plaintiff ultimately succeeds in the suit, then he could well be compensated in terms of money/damages.23. admittedly, the contract work relates to supply of security staff, chairs and putting up barricades at the site, and execution of such contract, is a time bound programme, and has to be executed before commencement of the matches, and execution of such contract work can neither be postponed nor compromise. therefore, making of elaborate security arrangements by deploying security personnel and erecting barricades at the site, is a herculean task, which has to be planned and arranged beforehand.24. according to the own admission of respondent no. 1 plaintiff, respondent no. 3 defendant no. 4 was allotted the work order of supplying security staff, chairs and erecting barricades at the site, and before granting ad interim injunction order in his favour, the court below ought to have considered the effect it would have, if respondent no. 3 defendant no. 4 to whom the contract work of supply the security staff, chairs and erecting barricades at the site, is restrained from executing the said work order, but unfortunately it did not consider the effect it would have on the conduct of the event by the organizers. by reason of the ad interim injunction order, the court below had not only restrained respondent no. 3 defendant no. 4, but had injuncted respondent no. 3 defendant no. 4 from supplying the security staff, chairs and erecting barricades at the site, which relief could have been granted to respondent no. 1 plaintiff, and this apart, the court ought to have seen whether respondent no. 1 plaintiff had the capacity to execute the work.25. the court below, without looking into the above aspects, had granted ad interim injunction in favour of respondent no. 1 defendant (sic. plaintiff), even though he failed to make out any prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury that would be caused if no ad interim injunction is granted. the court below before granting ad interim injunction orders, apart from failing to look into the principles governing the grant of ad interim injunction orders, the court below also failed to look into the provisions of section 5 of the specific relief act, 1963. in such view of the matter, i am of the considered opinion that the court below in the grant of ad interim injunction in favour of respondent no. 1 plaintiff and against respondent no. 3 defendant no. 4, had overstepped its jurisdiction. if the ad interim injunction order, granted by the court below in favour of respondent no. 1 plaintiff and against respondent no. 3 defendant no. 4, is allowed to continue, then it would amount to canceling the work order granted in favour of respondent no. 3 defendant no. 4 and granting the same work order in favour of respondent no. 1 plaintiff, even before adjudication of the lis involved in the suit.26. in the above view of the matter, i hold that the court below, in the facts and circumstances of the case, was not justified in granting ad interim injunction order in favour of respondent no. 1 plaintiff and against the petitioners defendants and respondent no. 3 defendant no. 4, and as such, is liable to be set aside.27. the courts/judicial officers, in matters of this nature, where security arrangement are involved, before passing ad interim injunction orders, must be careful and cautious, for if any order is passed, it would have effect on the security arrangements, and by reason of permitting an unsuccessful bidder to execute the work order of providing security arrangements, any untoward incident takes place, then the people will not blame the organizers, but will blame the judiciary.in re question no. 2:28. there is no doubt that as the impugned order of ad interim injunction, is an order passed by the court below under order xxxix rules 1 and 2 c.p.c. the normal remedy of. the petitioners defendants, is to file regular civil miscellaneous appeal under section 104(1)(i) read with order xliii, rule 1(1) c.p.c. but does mere availability of alternative remedy, bar the petitioners defendants from invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this court under article 227 of the constitution of india, when it is their specific complaint that the court below in passing the impugned ad interim injunction order, has exceeded its jurisdiction. in this context, a reference to the judgment of the apex court in surya dev rai v. ram grander rat air 2003 sc 3044 : 2003 (5) alt 19 (sc), be made wherein the apex court discussed the circumstances under which the high court can step in to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under article 227 of the constitution of india, as follows:supervisory jurisdiction under article 227 of the constitution is exercised for keeping the subordinate courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction. when the subordinate court has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does not have or the jurisdiction though available is being exercised by the court in a manner not permitted by law and failure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned thereby, the high court may step in to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction.29. having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that the matter relates to providing security for an event, which is urgent and necessitating and which if not met and is compromised, would lead to law and order problems and not be in the larger public interest, i am of the considered opinion that instead of going into technicalities and asking the petitioners defendant nos. 1 to 2 to prefer regular civil miscellaneous appeal, i am of the considered opinion that this is one of the rarest of rare cases, where this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under article 227 of the constitution of india, should interfere with the order under revision, and set aside the same, and more so when the court below in passing the same has exceeded its jurisdiction.30. there can be no quarrel on the proposition of law, laid down by this court in its judgments in r.k. agarwal v. ch. vijay kumari : 2007 (4) alt 838 and t. venkatacharya v. deputy commissioner of endowments, warangal : 2007 (3) alt 622, that when a remedy of appeal is available against an order passed under order xxxiv (order xliii) rules 1 and 2 c.p.c. a revision under article 227 of the constitution is not maintainable. as already stated above, this is one of the rarest of rare cases, and if the ad interim injunction order, granted by the court below is not set aside, then the entire proceedings in the suit would become academic. therefore, instead of rejecting the c.r.p. on technicalities, and relegating the petitioners defendant nos. 1 and 2 to avail the remedy of appeal, to prevent miscarriage of justice, this court deems it appropriate to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under article 227 of the constitution of india, entertain the c.r.p., and allow the same by setting aside the impugned order of ad interim injunction passed by the court below. accordingly, question no. 2 is answered.31. accordingly, the c.r.p. is allowed, and the order of ad interim injunction granted by the court below is set aside.32. the registrar (vigilance) is directed to place the matter before the administrative committee, for appropriate action against the officer. no costs.

Judgment:
ORDER

N.V. Ramana, J.

1. The petitioners, who are defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in the suit in O.S. No. 1997 of 2009 have filed this C.R.P. aggrieved by the order dated 07-10-2009, passed by the VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, in the application in I.A. No. 1449 of 2009, granting ad interim injunction in favour of respondent No. 1 plaintiff.

2. On 09-10-2009, this Court while ordering notice before admission, granted interim suspension of the impugned order. Today, to vacate the same, respondent No. 1 filed vacate stay petition in CRPMP (SR) No. 27263 of 2009, inter alia contending that the interim suspension order has been passed by this Court without appreciating the facts and law, and moved the same by way of House Motion at 5.00 p.m.

3. Respondent No. 1 claims to be a businessman and member of Hyderabad Cricket Association and Secretary of Sagar Cricket Club. He states that pursuant to the tender notification dated 20-09-2009 issued by the Hyderabad Cricket Association (hereinafter referred to as 'the Association', inviting tenders for contract of management of works, including gates, traffic, crowd, barricading, signages, liaison with police and security agencies for security managements (inside the stadium including parking area) and also for supply of VIP chairs, carpets, white cloth and other tent house material etc., at Rajiv Gandhi International Stadium, for the BCCI Champions League 20-20 Matches to be played on 10th, 14th, 16th, 18th, 22nd and 23rd October 2009 and also for the One Day International Match to be played on 05-11-2009 in between India and Australia, respondent No. 1, he purchased the tender form by paying Rs. 25,000/- and submitted the same.

4. The tenders having been opened by the Association, he states that he having quoted Rs. 10/- per Rft per day, for supplying and fixing barricades at the site and Rs. 350/- per day for each Security Guard and Rs. 15/- per day for each chair, emerged as the lowest bidder among the other contending bidders. That even though respondent No. 3 defendant No. 4, quoted higher amount than the amount quoted by him, yet the petitioners defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and respondent No. 2 herein, had announced respondent No. 3 defendant No. 4 as the successful bidder and issued him the work order. He states that when he questioned the issuance of work order to respondent No. 3 defendant No. 4, the Association, issued letter dated 06-10-2009, informing him that his tender application has not been considered, and accordingly returned the EMD amount paid by him.

5. Respondent No. 1 plaintiff stating that since the price quoted by him is less than price quoted by respondent No. 3 defendant No. 4 quoted, and he being the lowest tender of all the tenders received, should be awarded the contract, filed the suit O.S. No. 1977 of 2009 on the file of the Court below, praying to declare the allotment of tender work in favour of respondent No. 3 defendant No. 4 as null and void by accepting the lowest tender quoted by him. Along with the suit, respondent No. 1 plaintiff also filed the present application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C., praying to grant temporary injunction in his favour and against the defendants, restraining respondent No. 3 defendant No. 4, from arranging and supplying and fixing of barricades at the site.

6. On 07-10-2009, the Court below upon hearing the counsel for respondent No. 1 plaintiff on the present application, and while posting the application to 21-10-2009, granted ad interim injunction restraining respondent No. 3 defendant No. 4 from arranging and supplying and fixing of barricades at site etc., until further orders in the schedule property and as prayed for in the petition.

7. Questioning that order, the petitioners, who are defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in the suit filed the present C.R.P.

8. The learned Counsel for the petitioners defendants submitted that respondent No. 3 defendant No. 4 being the lowest bidder, was given the work order for supply of security staff and fixing of barricades at the site. Since respondent No. 1 plaintiff filed the suit praying to declare the contract awarded in favour of respondent No. 3 defendant No. 4 as null and void, unless and until the contract awarded in favour of respondent No. 3 defendant No. 4, is declared as null and void, respondent No. 1 plaintiff, is not entitled to grant of any relief, much less ad interim injunction order, and as such, the Court below committed an error in passing the impugned ad interim injunction order, restraining the successful bidder, namely respondent No. 3 defendant No. 4 from executing the work order, and more so without looking into the provisions of Section 5 of Specific Relief Act.

9. He submitted that the petitioners defendants have nothing to do with the Matches that are being conducted by BCCI, except to undertake such activities as are entrusted to them by BCCI. Since the Matches are organized by BCCI, and the petitioners defendants having been entrusted the duty of making elaborate security arrangements for the Matches organized by BCCI, the Court below before granting ad interim injunction in favour of respondent No. 1 plaintiff, preventing respondent No. 3 defendant No. 4 from supplying security staff and fixing barricades at the site, ought to have considered the fact that respondent No. 3 defendant No. 4 in terms of the work order granted by the petitioners defendants, was required to make elaborate security arrangements immediately and urgently for the events, which are to be witnessed by people in larger numbers.

10. He submitted that the Court below without looking into whether respondent No. 1 plaintiff made out a prima facie case, whether balance of convenience lay in his favour, and whether any irreparable injury would be caused to him if respondent No. 3 defendant No. 4 is not prevented from performing the obligations under the work order, and without issuing notice of the parties to be affected, has committed a grave error in passing the impugned ad interim injunction, by operation of which, not only respondent No. 3 defendant No. 4, who has been entrusted the work of supplying security staff and putting up barricades at the site, has been restrained from doing so, but also the organizers have been put to lot of inconvenience as they have to make alternate security arrangements within a short time, which is very difficult.

11. He submitted that even though against the impugned order of ad interim injunction passed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C., an appeal lies, but inasmuch as the Court below in passing the impugned order has exceeded its jurisdiction, the petitioners defendants are entitled to maintain the present C.R.P. filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and in support of this argument, he placed reliance on the judgment of the apex Court in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai : 2003 (5) ALT 19 (SC) : AIR 2003 SC 3044 : 2003 (5) ALT 35.1 (DNSC), and prayed that the impugned order of ad interim injunction, passed by the Court below being in excess of its jurisdiction, be set aside and the C.R.P. be allowed.

12. Before commencing his arguments, the counsel for respondent No. 1 plaintiff filed a memo withdrawing the statement made in para 11 of the affidavit filed in support of CRPMP (SR) No. 27263 of 2009 that 'without appreciating the facts and law', the Court has passed the interim suspension order. The said memo is placed on record.

13. The learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 plaintiff submitted that respondent No. 1 plaintiff having quoted less price than what respondent No. 3 defendant No. 4 had quoted for supply of security staff and fixing of barricades at the site, and he having emerged as the lowest bidder, is alone entitled to award of contract, and the petitioners defendants, are not justified in awarding the contract in favour of respondent No. 3 defendant No. 4. He submitted that the Court below considering the fact that the price quoted by respondent No. 1 plaintiff is far less than the price quoted by respondent No. 3 defendant No. 4, felt that irreparable injury would be caused to respondent No. 1 plaintiff, if he is not granted the contract, and accordingly passed the impugned ad interim injunction orders, restraining respondent No. 3 defendant No. 4 from providing security staff and fixing of barricades at the site, pending disposal of the suit, and no interference is called for therewith.

14. He submitted that since the impugned order of ad interim injunction, is an order passed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C., the remedy of the petitioners defendants is to file regular appeal, and as such, the C.R.P. filed by, them invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is not maintainable and prayed that the C.R.P. be dismissed as not maintainable, and in support of this argument, he placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in R.K. Agarwal v. Ch. Vijaya Kumari : 2007 (4) ALT 838 : 2007 (1) ALD 491 and T. Venkatacharya v. Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Warangal : 2007 (3) ALT 622 : 2007 (3) ALD 136.

15. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners defendants and the learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 plaintiff.

16. In the light of the arguments advanced, the following questions do arise for consideration in this C.R.P., namely:

(1) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court below was justified in granting ad interim injunction in favour of respondent No. 1 plaitniff and against respondent No. 3 defendant No. 4, preventing him from supplying security staff and fixing barricades, in terms of the work order granted by the petitioners defendant Nos. 1 and 2?

(2) Whether as against the impugned order of ad interim injunction passed by the Court below under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, the petitioners defendants have to file regular appeal or are entitled to maintain the present C.R.P. on the ground that the Court below has exceeded its jurisdiction in passing such an order?

17. Before proceeding to answer the above questions, the principles that govern the grant of ad interim injunction may be noted. Grant of ad interim injunction is an equitable relief. The Court before granting ad interim injunction must satisfy for itself three thins, namely (1) prima facie case; (2) irreparable injury or loss that would be caused if no interim injunction is granted; and (3) balance of convenience. If the nature of relief sought for by the parties has a bearing on public interest or affecting the public peace and order, then the Courts should not grant them unless the opposite party is issued notice and heard. If the facts situation warrant grant of interim injunction orders even without issuing notice to the defendants, then the Courts apart from satisfying for themselves prima facie case, irreparable injury or loss and balance of convenience, must also visualize the consequences of granting interim injunction orders and also refusing to grant interim injunction orders, and if it feels that the facts situation warrant grant of interim injunction, then the Court must consider whether the party against whom an order of interim injunction is granted, can be compensated by way of subsequent interim orders, in the event he satisfies that such an order could not have been granted against him. It is in the light of these legal principles, question No. 1 has to be answered.

In re question No. 1:

18. Admittedly, BCCI is hosting BCCI Champions League 20-20 Matches, at Rajiv Gandhi International Stadium, schedule to be played on 10th, 14th, 16th, 18th, 22nd and 23rd October, 2009 and also One Day International Match between India and Australia (day and night) to be played on 5-11-2009. To facilitate the hosting of the matches, the petitioners defendants state that BCCI entered into agreement with them for making necessary security and other arrangements for the security needs of the Players as well as the general public as also their convenience. In terms of that agreement, the petitioners defendants state that they issued tender notification for supply of security staff and fixing of barricades at the site, emerged as the lowest bidder among all the other tenderers, and in spite of his being the lowest bidder, ignoring his bid, the petitioners defendants awarded the contract work in favour of respondent No. 3 defendant No. 4, filed the suit praying for the following relief:

To declare the allotment of tender work in favour of respondent No. 3 defendant No. 4 by defendant Nos. 1 to 3 as null and void, by accepting the lowest tender quoted by the plaintiff for supplying and fixing of barricades at site per day at Rs. 10/- Rft and security guards (Men) per day Rs. 350/-each person, supplying and providing of chairs per day Rs. 15/- each for event of BCCI Champions League 20-20, nine Matches to be played over a period of 6 days schedule for 10th, 14th, 16th, 18th, 22nd and 23rd October, 2009 and also for International One Day Match day and right to be played on 5-11-2009 in between India and Australia at Rajiv Gandhi International Stadium, and to restrain defendant No. 4 from doing tender work allotted by defendant Nos. 1 to 3.

19. Pending disposal of the suit, respondent No. 1 plaintiff, filed the present application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C., praying to grant the following relief:

Temporary injunction in his favour and against the defendants, restraining respondent No. 3 defendant No. 4, from arranging and supplying and fixing of barricades at the site per day at Rs. 8/- per Sft and Security Guards (Men) per day at Rs. 650/- for each person, supplying and providing of chairs per day at Rs. 35/- each for even of BCCI Champions League 20-20 Matches to be played on 10th, 14th, 16th, 18th, 22nd and 23rd October 2009 and also for the One Day International Match to be played on 5-11-2009 in between India and Australia.

20. On 7-10-2009, the Court below upon hearing the counsel for respondent No. 1 plaintiff passed ad interim injunction order in favour of respondent No. 1 plaintiff and against the petitioners defendants and respondent No. 3 defendant No. 4, which reads as follows:

Upon mention made unto this Court by Sri M.A.K. Mukheed, counsel for the petitioner and upon perusing the affidavit of the said petition and material papers in support thereof this Court doth order that Ad Interim Injunction restraining respondent No. 4 from interfering in arranging and supplying and fixing of barricades at sit etc., until further orders in the schedule property and as prayed for in the petition:

Schedule of Property

Within the premises including Parking Area of Rajiv Gandhi Cricket Stadium, Visakha Cricket Ground, Uppal, Ranga Reddy District.

The case stands posted to 21-10-2009.

21. Though respondent No. 1 plaintiff claims that he is the lowest bidder of all the tenderers, the same is disputed by the petitioners defendants, and it is the specific case of the petitioners defendants, that it is not respondent No. 1 plaintiff, but respondent No. 3 defendant No. 4, who is lowest bidder, and that respondent No. 3 defendant No. 4 being the lowest bidder, the contract work was awarded to him.

22. Be that as it may, the Court below without issuing any notice to the petitioners defendants and respondent No. 3 defendant No. 4, passed the ad interim injunction order, merely based on the averments made by respondent No. 1 plaintiff in the affidavit filed in support of the application that he emerged as the lowest bidder. It appears from the record that respondent No. 1 plaintiff has not placed any document to show that the petitioners defendants had allotted the work order in his favour. In fact, it is not even the case of respondent No. 1 plaintiff that he was awarded the contract by the petitioners defendants, and that despite award of contract in his favour by respondent No. 1 plaintiff, respondent No. 3 defendant No. 4, was interfering with the execution of his work. On the other hand, it is the admitted case of respondent No. 1 plaintiff, as is evident from the prayer sought by him in the suit, he was asking to declare the allotment of tender work in favour of respondent No. 3 defendant No. 4, as null and void and to accept his tender. Considering the nature of relief sought for by respondent No. 1 plaintiff, unless and until the allotment of work order granted in favour of respondent No. 3-defendnat No. 4, is declared as null and void and set aside, the Court below could not have granted any relief to respondent No. 1 plaintiff, much less ad interim injunction order, restraining respondent No. 3 defendant No. 4, who, the petitioners contend, is the lowest bidder, from executing the work order, and more so when the execution of the work is urgent in nature and is spread over a period of ten days, and in the event, respondent No. 1 plaintiff ultimately succeeds in the suit, then he could well be compensated in terms of money/damages.

23. Admittedly, the contract work relates to supply of security staff, chairs and putting up barricades at the site, and execution of such contract, is a time bound programme, and has to be executed before commencement of the Matches, and execution of such contract work can neither be postponed nor compromise. Therefore, making of elaborate security arrangements by deploying security personnel and erecting barricades at the site, is a Herculean task, which has to be planned and arranged beforehand.

24. According to the own admission of respondent No. 1 plaintiff, respondent No. 3 defendant No. 4 was allotted the work order of supplying security staff, chairs and erecting barricades at the site, and before granting ad interim injunction order in his favour, the Court below ought to have considered the effect it would have, if respondent No. 3 defendant No. 4 to whom the contract work of supply the security staff, chairs and erecting barricades at the site, is restrained from executing the said work order, but unfortunately it did not consider the effect it would have on the conduct of the event by the organizers. By reason of the ad interim injunction order, the Court below had not only restrained respondent No. 3 defendant No. 4, but had injuncted respondent No. 3 defendant No. 4 from supplying the security staff, chairs and erecting barricades at the site, which relief could have been granted to respondent No. 1 plaintiff, and this apart, the Court ought to have seen whether respondent No. 1 plaintiff had the capacity to execute the work.

25. The Court below, without looking into the above aspects, had granted ad interim injunction in favour of respondent No. 1 defendant (sic. Plaintiff), even though he failed to make out any prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury that would be caused if no ad interim injunction is granted. The court below before granting ad interim injunction orders, apart from failing to look into the principles governing the grant of ad interim injunction orders, the Court below also failed to look into the provisions of Section 5 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. In such view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the Court below in the grant of ad interim injunction in favour of respondent No. 1 plaintiff and against respondent No. 3 defendant No. 4, had overstepped its jurisdiction. If the ad interim injunction order, granted by the Court below in favour of respondent No. 1 plaintiff and against respondent No. 3 defendant No. 4, is allowed to continue, then it would amount to canceling the work order granted in favour of respondent No. 3 defendant No. 4 and granting the same work order in favour of respondent No. 1 plaintiff, even before adjudication of the lis involved in the suit.

26. In the above view of the matter, I hold that the Court below, in the facts and circumstances of the case, was not justified in granting ad interim injunction order in favour of respondent No. 1 plaintiff and against the petitioners defendants and respondent No. 3 defendant No. 4, and as such, is liable to be set aside.

27. The Courts/Judicial Officers, in matters of this nature, where security arrangement are involved, before passing ad interim injunction orders, must be careful and cautious, for if any order is passed, it would have effect on the security arrangements, and by reason of permitting an unsuccessful bidder to execute the work order of providing security arrangements, any untoward incident takes place, then the people will not blame the organizers, but will blame the Judiciary.

In re question No. 2:

28. There is no doubt that as the impugned order of ad interim injunction, is an order passed by the Court below under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. the normal remedy of. the petitioners defendants, is to file regular civil miscellaneous appeal under Section 104(1)(i) read with Order XLIII, Rule 1(1) C.P.C. but does mere availability of alternative remedy, bar the petitioners defendants from invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, when it is their specific complaint that the Court below in passing the impugned ad interim injunction order, has exceeded its jurisdiction. In this context, a reference to the judgment of the apex Court in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Grander Rat AIR 2003 SC 3044 : 2003 (5) ALT 19 (SC), be made wherein the apex Court discussed the circumstances under which the High Court can step in to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, as follows:

Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is exercised for keeping the subordinate Courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction. When the subordinate Court has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does not have or the jurisdiction though available is being exercised by the Court in a manner not permitted by law and failure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned thereby, the High Court may step in to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction.

29. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that the matter relates to providing security for an event, which is urgent and necessitating and which if not met and is compromised, would lead to law and order problems and not be in the larger public interest, I am of the considered opinion that instead of going into technicalities and asking the petitioners defendant Nos. 1 to 2 to prefer regular civil miscellaneous appeal, I am of the considered opinion that this is one of the rarest of rare cases, where this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, should interfere with the order under revision, and set aside the same, and more so when the Court below in passing the same has exceeded its jurisdiction.

30. There can be no quarrel on the proposition of law, laid down by this Court in its judgments in R.K. Agarwal v. Ch. Vijay Kumari : 2007 (4) ALT 838 and T. Venkatacharya v. Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Warangal : 2007 (3) ALT 622, that when a remedy of appeal is available against an order passed under Order XXXIV (Order XLIII) Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. a revision under Article 227 of the Constitution is not maintainable. As already stated above, this is one of the rarest of rare cases, and if the ad interim injunction order, granted by the Court below is not set aside, then the entire proceedings in the suit would become academic. Therefore, instead of rejecting the C.R.P. on technicalities, and relegating the petitioners defendant Nos. 1 and 2 to avail the remedy of appeal, to prevent miscarriage of justice, this Court deems it appropriate to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, entertain the C.R.P., and allow the same by setting aside the impugned order of ad interim injunction passed by the Court below. Accordingly, question No. 2 is answered.

31. Accordingly, the C.R.P. is allowed, and the order of ad interim injunction granted by the Court below is set aside.

32. The Registrar (Vigilance) is directed to place the matter before the Administrative Committee, for appropriate action against the officer. No costs.