Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010056052025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WA/83/2025 NUMALIGARH REFINERY LTD A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ENTERPRISE HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT RL CENTRE, 122A, G.S. ROAD, CHRISTIANBASTI, GUWAHATI-781005, ASSAM, INDIA REPRESENTED THROUGH DR. KAJALSAIKIA S/O LATE MADHU SAIKIA RLO QUARTER NO.D-22, NUMALIGARH REFINERY TOWNSHIP 785699 VERSUS M/S VARDAN ASSOCIATES PRIVATE LTD AND ORS A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT G-7, ASSOCIATES PLAZA, I BLOCK, SHASATRI NAGAR, MEERUT - 250004, UTTAR PRADESH REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR. SACHIN KUMAR TYAGI S/O RAKESH KUMAR TYAGI RESIDENT OF D194, D BLOCK, SHASTRI NAGAR, MEERUT 250004 2:BANK OF INDIA SECTOR - 18 NOIDA BRANCH GAUTAM BUDDHA NAGAR - 201301 REPRESENTED BY BRANCH MANAGER 3:M/S TRENCHLESS ENGINEERIG SERVICES PRIVATE LTD REPRESENTED BY DIRECTOR MR BIPIN P GUPTA HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT C-185 MAYAPURI PHASE - II NEW DELHI- 110064 4:GENERAL MANAGER COMMERCIAL NUMLIGARH REFINERY LIMITED PO NUMALIGARH REFI NERY COMPLEX DISTRICT - GOLAGHAT ASSAM 785966 5:HEAD PROJECT COMMERCIAL Page No.# 2/4 NUMALIGARH REFINERY LIMITED PO NUMALIGARH REFI NERY COMPLEX DISTRICT - GOLAGHAT ASSAM 785966 6:GENERAL MANAGER CONSTRUCTION NUMALIGARH REFINERY LIMITED PO NUMALIGARH REFI NERY COMPLEX DISTRICT - GOLAGHAT ASSAM 785966 7:RESIDENT CONSTRUCTION MANAGER ENGINEERS INDIA LIMITED HOTEL MONARCH AACHAL BANANI COMPLEX NEAR BDO SHIV MANDIR SILIGURI -734011 WEST BENGAL 8:CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSIONER SATARKTA BHAWAN BLOCK - A GPO COMPLEX INA NEW DELHI - 11002 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S S ROY, Advocate for the Respondent : MR J LOTHA (R-1), MR B D DAS(R-1),MR D BANIA(R-1),MR. H R DAS(R-1) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI ORDER Date : 15-05-2025 (Kalyan Rai Surana, J) 1. Heard Mr. A. Garg, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. B.D. Das, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. J. Lotha, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1. None appears for the respondent no. 2 on call. 2. By filing this intra-court appeal, the appellant has assailed the order dated 05.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C)/142/2025. Page No.# 3/4 3. The operative part of the order which has been assailed in this intra- court appeal is extracted below :- “Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and considering that the termination of the contract has been put to challenge in the writ petition which is pending for disposal, I am of the view that interest of justice would be served if this interlocutory application is disposed of by directing the parties to maintain status-quo till the writ petition is disposed of, as it would appear that irretrievable injustice may cause to the applicant, if the Bank Guarantee is allowed to be invoked during the pendency of the writ petition. More so, in view of the fact that parties have agreed to complete the pleadings and fix the matter in the 1st week of April, 2025 of final disposal. Accordingly, it is directed that parties to maintain status-quo till the next date.” 4. From the above quoted paragraph-16 of the impugned order notwithstanding that the observation of the Court was to dispose of the interlocutory application by directing the parties to maintain status-quo till the writ petition is disposed of, but at the later part of the order, the direction is to the parties to maintain status-quo till the next date. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted at the Bar that the writ petition was listed last on 05.05.2025. 6. Be that as it may though the direction was to maintain status-quo till the next date, the interlocutory application has been disposed of. Therefore, the interlocutory application having been disposed of, the “next Page No.# 4/4 date” appearing in the impugned order shall obviously would be the next date when the writ appeal is listed. 7. Thus, from the submissions made at the Bar, it appears that the order of status-quo is not been extended by any subsequent order passed in the writ petition. 8. Accordingly, the Court is of the considered opinion that there is no live issue involved in the present intra-court appeal as the status-quo which was to be maintained till next date is not been extended thereafter. 9. At this stage, the learned Senior counsel for the respondent no. 1 has submitted that the writ petition is listed before the learned Single Judge today. We take note of that. 10. Accordingly, having not found any live issue in this intra-court appeal, this appeal stands closed. 11. Nothing contains in this order shall prejudice the parties when the writ petition is heard on merit. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant