IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.4518 OF 2008 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.8750/2007)

M/s. Supreme Industries Ltd. ...Appellant(s)

Versus

M/s. Ranisati Pipe Industries & Ors. ...Respondent(s)

O R D E R

Leave granted.

Having heard learned counsel on both sides and having examined in detail

each of the documents relevant to the case, Mr.Jha,  learned counsel  appearing

for respondent  No.1-M/s.  Ranisati  Pipe Industries  (original  writ  petitioner in  the

High Court) states, on instructions, that he would like to withdraw the original Writ

Petition No.1046/2006 filed in the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi.

In view of the above statement made by the learned counsel, the impugned

judgment of the Division Bench as well as the judgment of the learned Single Judge

stands set aside as the original Writ Petition stands dismissed as withdrawn.

Accordingly, with the dismissal of the original Writ Petition No.1046/2006,

the status quo ante  as  prevalent on

...2/-

-2-

the date of filing of the said Writ Petition shall stand restored.

At  this  stage,  we  are  required  to  state  that  since  we  are  directing

restoration of status quo ante, it needs to be mentioned that a concluded contract

awarded  in  favour  of  the  appellant  stood  terminated  after  they  had  supplied

approximately three lakh metres of PVC Pipes out of the total quantity of nine lakh

metres.  The Court's intervention took place at the stage of execution of the contract.

Since  we  are  restoring  status  quo ante,  we  are  directing  the  appellant  herein  to

supply the the balance quantity under the contract within thirty days from today.

Secondly, we are also directing the State to accept the balance quantity accordingly.

This Order is being passed because the Appellant had supplied 300000 (approx.) out

of 900000 Metres of PVC Pipes.

At  this  stage,  Shri  B.B.Singh,  learned  counsel  appearing  for  State  of

Jharkhand,  states  that  he  has  received  instructions  from  the  Secretary,  Water

Resources  Department,  that  the  State  supports  the  impugned  judgment  of  the

Division Bench of the High Court, vide letter dated 21st April, 2008.  Further, Mr.

Singh points out that he has no instructions  with  regard to  the balance quantity

which is

  ...3/-

-3-

required  to  be  supplied  under  the  contract.   We  find  no  reason  to  accept  the

statement of the Secretary for two reasons.  All throughout the litigation the State

has filed affidavits supporting the decision inviting tender as well as the terms and

conditions of N.I.T.  Even with regard to the rate at which the offer is made by the

appellant, the State has supported the rate submitted by the appellant.  Even before

us  in  the S.L.P.,  affidavits  have been filed  to that  effect.   Secondly,  in  this  case,

original Writ Petition was filed by respondent No.1 who, as stated hereinabove, has

sought our permission to withdraw the Writ Petition.  In the circumstances, there is

no question of the State now submitting vide some letter that they are supporting the

impugned judgment.

Civil Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of with no order as to costs.

                         ...................J.               (S.H. KAPADIA)

                  ...................J.                                         (B. SUDERSHAN REDDY) New Delhi, July 17, 2008.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.8524 OF 2007

M/s. Farmers Tractors ...Appellant(s)

Versus

State of Jharkhand & Ors. ...Respondent(s)

O R D E R

In view of our order passed today in the case of M/s. Supreme Industries

Ltd. Vs. M/s. Ranisati Pipe Industries & Ors., Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P.(C)

No.8750/2007, nothing survives in this Petition filed by M/s. Farmers Tractors.  The

reason is that petitioners-M/s. Farmers Tractors were intervenors in the High Court.

They  had  opposed  the  original  Writ  Petition  filed  by  respondent  No.5  herein-

M/s.Ranisati  Pipe Industries.   Since the original  Writ Petition sands dismissed as

withdrawn,  nothing  survives  in  this  Special  Leave  Petition  and  the  same  is,

accordingly, dismissed as infructuous.

No orders as to costs.

                         ...................J.               (S.H. KAPADIA)

                  ...................J.                                         (B. SUDERSHAN REDDY) New Delhi, July 17, 2008.