RAJU COAL SUPPLIERS Vs. CHAIRMAN GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Gujarat Electricity Board ("G.E.B." for brevity) invited tenders for sale of 1,50,000 M.Ts., of coal reject from Wanakbori Thermal Power Station. The petitioner purchased a tender form. But he did not offer to purchase the coal reject. Respondent No. 3 submitted his tender. That was the highest tender. Consequently, right to lift the coal reject was given to respondent No. 3. According to tender form, coal reject was to be lifted as per the schedule mentioned therein. During November to May the contractor was to lift 15,000 M.Ts., to 18,000 M.Ts., and during monsoon 3,000 M.Ts., per month. In case the above quantity is not lifted ground rent at the rate of Rs. 251- per M.T. was to be realised.

(2.) After finalising the contract on the basis of the above conditions, it is averred by the petitioner that G.E.B., rescheduled the quantity of coal reject to be lifted and thereby gave material benefits to respondent No. 3. It is further the case of the petitioner that G.E.B., did not realise the ground rent at the rate of Rs. 25.00 per month per M.T. of coal from respondent No. 3 on account of its failure to stick to the schedule fixed for lifting the same. The right given to respondent No. 3 to lift the coal reject as per the contract entered into was to expire on 14-8-1997. Even after that date respondent No. 3 was permitted to lift coal reject during the subsequent period without inviting fresh tender. On these averments the petitioner has approached this Court praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing G.E.B. not to grant by private negotiations, any further extension of contract to respondent No. 3, who is a defaulter. The petitioner also prayed that :

(3.) The petitioner has approached this Court as Pro Bono Publico. He initiated this proceeding as a 'Public Interest Litigation'. At the petitioner's instance this Court passed an interim order on 12-9-1997 restraining respondent No. 3 from lifting coal from the premises of G.E.B. When the matter came up before the Bench, again on 15-9-1997, this Court passed the following order :