PRABHUDAYAL RAMANAND Vs. STATE TRADING CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As common questions of facts and law. arise for decision, the three writ petitions are disposed of by a common order. The third respondent, the State Trading Corporation, Branch Hyderabad, had in custody 79,946 bags weighing 50 kgs. per bag of damaged imported sugar. It floated tenders on April 3, 1989, for its disposal. The last date for submitting tenders was extended from April 13 to May 13, 1989. But due to fluctuation of the market price, it was further extended up to June 23, 1989. Those who offered the tenders and paid the price at the rate of Rs. 650/- per quintal, were allotted accordingly and the offers made under those tenders came to a terminus on June 23, 1989. There remained 1,130 metric tonnes of sugar undisposed of. Sniffing the proposal for disposal inviting limited tenders from those who had already offered and lifted the goods, the petitioners in Writ Petition No, 10731/89 voluntarily made offers between June 23 and 30, 1989, to purchase the undisposed sugar at the same rate of Rs. 650/- per quintal. Initially, it was proposed to dispose of inviting all those who offered on the previous occassion but the second respondent, head office from Delhi, directed to accept the offers received between June 23 and 30, 1989. In the meanwhile, M/s. Indian Sugar Agencies, the petitioner in WP No. 9248/89, filed the writ petition on July 5, 1989. By interim orders, this Court directed that any action taken by the respondents will be subject to the result in the writ petition. But instructions were received from Delhi office not to accept any tender and to refund the moneys, to the parties who have remitted tenders, and limited lenders from 139, who initially submitted their tenders, fixing the reserve price at Rs. 700/- per metric tonne may be called Then the respondents received from the two petitioners on July 19, 1989, a telegram keeking refund. The sent by the petitioners were returned on July 19, 1989,. The draft received from the petitioner in WP No. 10838/89 was credited to the Office Account at Visakhapatnam. Therefore, they withdrew the money, obtained fresh draft and returned to the said offeror on July 21, 1989. In view of the interim direction granted by this Court, it was decided to call fresh tenders. Accordingly, fresh tenders were called for on July 28, 1989, calling for the disposal of the balance quantity of 1,130 metric tonnes of imported damaged sugar. As an independent tender it was floated at the discretion of the Corporation. Assailing the legality, the petitioners filed W.P. No. 10731 of 1989. The petitioner in WP. No. 10838/89 also filed the writ petition.

(2.) The relief in the first writ petition is for a mandamus to declare the tender notice dated July 28, 1989, as illegal, void and consequently to direct the respondents to deliver order as per their previous commitment. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 10838 of 1989 also is seeking the same relief. The petitioner in WP No 9248/89 is seeking to enforce the coatract dated April 3, 1989, directing to allocate the undisposed balance of 1,130 metrictornes of sugar at Rs. 655/- per quintal.

(3.) From the resume of the aforestated facts, it is clear that the offers made to purchase at the rate of Rs. 650/- per quintal pursuant to the initial tender dated April 3,1989, came to a terminus with the expiry of June 23, 1989, by which date as per the terms of the contract, the goods contracted for were delivered to the respective parties. Fresh tenders were called for on July 28, 1989. In the meanwhile, proposals were voluntarily sent offering to purchase the undisposed 1,130 metric tonnes ofsugar by the petitioners in WP No. 10731/89 between May 24 and 25, 1989, at the rate of Rs. 650/- per metric tonne. There is no communication of acceptance of this offer by the third respondent. Pursuant to the invitation through the second tenders, several persons have submitted their tenders. This Court by interim direction directed not to finalise the tenders. Interim direction granted on August 3, 1989, was modified by the order dated August 22, 1989, directing to dispose of the goods except to the quantity to which the petitioners in W.P. No, 10731/89 have offered to purchase,