LAWS(SC)-2006-5-44

BISHNU PRASAD DASH Vs. RAJ KUMAR AGARWAL

Decided On May 01, 2006
BISHNU PRASAD DASH Appellant
V/S
RAJ KUMAR AGARWAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) Appellant calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Orissa High Court directing that the offer of Orissa Small Industries Corporation Ltd. (in short the OSICL) represented by its agent (Respondent No.1) at Rs.85/- per kg. will be considered by the Government at the highest level, namely the Chief Minister of Orissa. It was further observed that it will be open for the Government to pass such orders as it deems fit in the larger public interest; keeping in view all aspects of the matter. It would also be open for the Government to call for revised offers from the Industrial Development Corporation of Orissa Ltd. (in short the IDCOL, OSICL or from any other party. Appellant represents IDCOL as its agent.

(3.) Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: Respondent no.1 has been lifting copper cables scrap from the OSICL since 2002. For disposal of 16,625.09 kg. of copper cables pertaining to Main Dam Division, Burla, proposal for tender was submitted by the Chief Engineer, Mechanical and off set price was fixed at Rs.160/- per kg. The IDCOL did not respond to the said tender. The OSICL offered a price of Rs.80/- per kg. But no other party responded to the tender invited by the Executive Engineer. Thereafter, the IDCOL made an offer of Rs.84/- per kg. of copper cable excluding all taxes and duties. The matter was processed and finally orders were passed by the Government at the level of Chief Minister of Orissa for disposal of the copper cable at the rate of Rs.84/- per kg. to the IDCOL. After the aforesaid order was passed by the Chief Minister of Orissa on 16.12.2004, the OSICL submitted a fresh offer dated 20.12.2004 at Rs.85/- per kg. but the said offer of the OSICL was not considered pursuant to the notes given in the Department that the offer was made belatedly after order was passed by the Government and if the said order is entertained, it will affect the sanctity of the Government order. Respondent No.1 filed a writ petition challenging the Government order.