1. ' Learned counsel has stated that the order dated 18-12-2007 passed by the Learned Single Judge is not tenable in law as proper factual position has not been appreciated. He submits that the Appellant was one of the proposed consultants and applied to bid in the Project, which was advertised but he has not been considered and by letter dated 12-7-2007 (Annexure B) he has been informed that his firm is not qualified. He submits that such order is not an speaking order and that is not expected. From a government control body.
2. ' On the other hand Mr. Manzoor Ahmed submits that this is a public project wherein thousands of allottees are involved and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed that the project be completed as soon as possible. He submits that the Appellant has no claim nor even he has any entitlement, and that it can only be decided after recording of evidence and if he succeeds he can be compensated.
3. ' We have observed, after perusal of the order, that the learned Judge in his last Para has given close findings, which is reproduced as under:-- "From the tentative assessm ent of the material available on the record, I am of the considered view that the plaintiff has no prima facie case at this stage. The balance of convenience is also not in favour of the plaintiff as great inconvenience will be caused to the 42000 allottees of the plots properties in Hawksbay Housing Scheme-42 who are waiting for taking over possession of their plots and in exercise their legal rights to deal with their properties/plot as per law. Further more,.
4. Hon'ble Supreme Court had been pleased to direct the defendant to complete the Hawksbay Housing Scheme-42 as soon as possible. No irreparable loss will be caused to the plaintiff, if the injunction is refused because the loss, if any, can be compensated in the shape of damages by the plaintiff."
5. ' We have observed that the learned Judge was right to declare that if any loss, which may be estimated after the decision of the suit then by that the plaintiff can be compensated. We are also of the opinion that normally in the contract matters a contract provides profit range from 10% to 20% and that can be estimated as a lost keeping in view the bid of the contractor, since irreparable loss and balance of convenience was not on the side of the appellant, therefore, the decision of the learned Single Judge is right. Hence, we dismiss this Appeal with costs along with the listed application.