RAMJI YADAV Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the usual scrap dealer's application hoping to make something out of nothing. But however prejudiced one may be, the rule of law that guides our society and is at the heart of the Constitution does not permit an impressionistic judgment to be rendered before the perceived recalcitrant is afforded a reasonable opportunity to present his case. In any event, the scope of the present request under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is also restricted. This petitioner participated at an auction for purchase of some condemned wagons. The earnest money was deposited. The bid sheet, which is the contract between the parties, specified the date within which the balance sale value had to be paid and the time by which the delivery had to be taken. The bid sheet also referred to the general conditions governing the auction sale. These general conditions provide for the sale to be on "as is where is" basis and with no liability to seller railways in terms of any indemnity or warranty.

(2.) The petitioner did not pay the balance sale value within the time stipulated. There was an understandable time-lag between the date fixed for balance payment to be made and the time provided for delivery to be taken. Following the expiry of the time for tendering the balance payment, a show cause notice was issued by the railways to the petitioner. Such a show cause notice is generally a reminder to the auction purchaser since it is within the concerned official's authority to extend the period of payment by about 50 days or so. The petitioner here did not reply to the show cause notice but, subsequently, demanded some special favours to be extended to him by the railways. The petitioner did not tender the balance payment or attempt to take delivery of the goods within the stipulated dates or even within any reasonable period thereof. By September, 2005, the contract was cancelled.

(3.) In January, 2008, came the petitioner's first gambit in trying to recover the earnest deposit. A notice was issued to the relevant General Manager with a grievance that the wagons could never have been removed from the Andal Scrap Yard since there was no access thereat to facilitate the removal of the wagons. The letter dated January 15, 2008 did not elicit any response from the railways. The letter contained a demand for the appointment of an arbitrator by the General Manager within 30 days from the date of receipt thereof.