NEYVELI LIGNITE CORPORATION LIMITED, REP BY THE CHIEF MARKETING MANAGER, MARKETING BRANCH Vs. ESWARI ENTERPRISES, REP BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER - MR R ASHOKAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant viz., Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited, is a Government of India Enterprise, having registered office at No.135, Periyar E.V.R. High Road, Chennai-10. Its main activities are mining of lignite and generation of power by using the lignite and in that process of generation of power in Thermal Stations, some unburnt lignite particles (hereinafter referred to as UBL) arise and these are washed off and carried through channels to the specified ash bunds. There are 3 such ash bunds known as ACD Bund Sector-I, ACD Bund Sector-II and 'H' Bund of the Thermal Station No.1. These bunds are so designed and constructed that the UBL in the slag, settled in the respective Bunds, is given away by auction for a consideration. Tenders were floated during early 2001 for retrieval, removal and disposal of UBL with respect to these bunds and also for the removal and disposal of some heaped UBL on the Eastern side of the H Bund. So far as the removal and disposal of some heaped UBL on the Eastern Side bank of the H Bund, there was no offer and hence, the corporation decided to do it by itself. In respect of other three bunds, auction was conducted. The respondent/petitioner was the successful bidder in respect of two auctions while one M/s. R.R. Chemicals Limited was in respect of the third one.

(2.) In the earlier proceedings, that is, in W.P. No.16699 of 2001, a learned single Judge of this Court, by an order dated 15.10.2001, considering the facts and circumstances and also the hardships that will be put to the prospective successful tenderer and the Neyveli Lignite Corporation, passed an order that the petitioner/respondent may be awarded contract for all the three bunds subject to certain conditions. Three separate Letter of Licences were issued and agreements were also entered into.

(3.) Just a few days before the expiry of the term of 180 days (the last date was 11.5.2002) the respondent/writ petitioner filed W.P. No.16051 of 2002 on 08.05.2002, before the Vacation Court, seeking extension of period by 101 days. An ex-parte order of interim injunction was granted for four weeks. Between 12.05.2002 and 12.6.2002, according to the appellant, the respondent removed about 465 truck-loads of UBL without making any payment or bank guarantee. Even on 15.5.2002, the appellant moved a Miscellaneous Petition before the second Vacation Court, opposing extension of the interim injunction already granted. On 4.6.2002, the interim injunction expired. However, on 6.6.2002, the interim injunction was extended by another two weeks, that is, till 20.06.2002. Even at that time, no conditions were imposed with regard to payment. The appellant, finding that it is incurring heavy loss, filed W.A. No.1689 of 2002. On 12.06.2002, the Court passed the following order.