Srinagar, May 13:
The High Court of J&K and Ladakh has held that private interest must be subservient to larger public interest and courts should always keep the larger public interest in mind in order to decide whether its intervention is called for or not.
“Only when, the court comes to a conclusion that overwhelming public interest requires interference, under that circumstance, the court should intervene,” a bench of Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal said while allowing government’s application seeking vacation of an interim order of the court regarding a construction of IRP Battalion Headquarters and Anti Corruption Bureau Office, Doda and the other allied works.
The government had filed the application with the contention that the interim order dated 1.3.2023, passed by the Court in WP(C) No.466/2023 was operating harshly against the government as it had stalled the prestigious police project in Doda.
After hearing the parties, the court held that it was required for it to consider not only the interest of the contesting parties, but also, the element of larger public interest whether to continue with the interim order or to vacate the same.
“It is beyond any cavil of doubt that before passing an interim order, the Court should not only consider the prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury, but also have to consider the effect on public interest as well,” the Court said. “The public interest, in the instant case, demands that the project should not be stalled, thus, an interim order involving public interest must receive different consideration”.
While the court observed that the interim direction, in favour of the petitioner (M/s A L Construction) has only caused loss to the parties with no corresponding gain to anyone, it said: “This court is of the opinion that to buttonhole the project is in nobody’s interest but is only antithetical to public interest”.
Observing that the project, in question, relates to larger public interest, more so when the question of national security is involved, the Court said: “This court, after perusing the record, is of the view that there was no blanket stay order, which could have caused legal impediment for the respondents to have finalized the tender, as merely, staying the communication would not ipso facto be construed as if the whole tendering process has been stayed.”
The authorities, the court said, have misinterpreted the staying of the communication as a stay on the entire tender process.
“……in view of the settled legal position that private interest must be subservient to larger public interest, this Court deems it proper to modify the interim order dated 01.03.2023 by giving liberty to the respondents to proceed ahead with the tender issued vide E-NIT No.EE/PCD/PHQ/82/2021-22 dated 06.08.2022, or else the respondents are at liberty to re-tender, if circumstances so warrant,” the court said.
It added: “However, the decision, which the respondents (authorities) may take, shall be subject to the final outcome of the writ petition i.e. WP(C) No. 466/2023”.
The court held that its observations made would confine to the extent of the disposal of the application only and would have no bearing on the final adjudication of the writ petitions, which would be decided independently.
The court listed the two related writ petitions for consideration on 3 June.