JUDGMENT
B.C. Patel, C.J.
CM 2431/05
1. Allowed subject to just exceptions.
LPA 430/05 and CM 2430/05
2. The present appeal is preferred against the order made by the learned single Judge in WP(C) 18508/04 on 3.12.2004
3. Earlier the appellant had preferred a writ petition being WP(C) 3632/01 which was decided on 21-3-2003 wherein the court passed orders as under:-
”Holding of the competition and selecting the best entry was one thing and award of the contract on the basis was another aspect. Two things were different and distinct. Even if for some reason, the contract was not to be awarded, the respondents could still consider about the announcement of the result of the competition may be to announce the best entry out of mediocre entries. The matter has not been considered from this angle. Only on the ground that no entry is worth awarding the contract, the competition itself was terminated. Further in the communication addressed to the petitioner, the ground stated is unforeseen circumstance and the aforesaid facts would reveal that this cannot be a ground.
13. The matter is therefore, remanded back to the respondents to consider the matter afresh from this angle. It is clarified that it would be upon the respondents to ultimately take a decision as to whether the result of the competition can be announced without going ahead with the award of the contract. The matter may be considered afresh within a period of four weeks from date and decision taken thereon.”
4. Reading the said order it is clear that court made an order for consideration about the announcement of the result. For one reason or the other that was not done. Even the petitioner/appellant did not bother about his rights arising out of that order and was sleeping over his rights. If he was aggrieved by that order he should have approached the higher forum. Now he has approached the court by filing the present appeal for the same prayer, namely directing the respondents to announce the results of the Limited Architectural Competition for the proposed Videsh Bhawan in terms of judgment dated 21-3-2003. Direction was already given and it is for the appellant to see how it is implemented. But, on the same cause of action there cannot be another petition and for this reason we are of the opinion that the learned single Judge was justified in declining to exercise his discretion.
