MAA BARUNEI ENTERPRISERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a registered partnership firm dealing with, inter alia, scrap materials. The Deputy Manager (Project), Dredging Corporation of India, Project Office, Paradeep, invited sealed tenders for disposal of scrap materials by tender notice dated 30.10.2002. As per the said tender notice, tenders were to be received at 15.00 hours and were to be opened at 15.50 hours on 20.11.2002. The case of the petitioner in this writ petition is that on 20.11.2002, only three sealed tenders had been submitted before the Deputy Manager (Project), Dredging Corporation of India, Project Office, Paradeep and the tender of the petitioner was the highest at Rs. 6,49,368/ . The Deputy Manager (Project) by his letter dated 21.11,2002 requested the petitioner to attend his office on 21. 11.2002 for negotiation and in response to the said letter, the managing partner of the petitioner firm attended the office of the Deputy Manager (Project) at Paradeep on 21.11.2002 and agreed to increase the quoted rate by 5 per cent but the sale order was not issued in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter by letter dated 27.12,2002, the managing partner of the petitioner firm requested the Deputy Manager (Project) to issue the sale order. Instead, the Deputy Manager (Project) served a letter dated 27.12.2002 on the petitioner intimating the petitioner that the petitioner firm has been considered as an unsuccessful tenderer and requested the petitioner firm to attend his office for collection of the earnest money deposit submitted by the petitioner. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for quashing the decision in the said letter dated 27.12.2002 in Annexure 5 to the writ petition treating the petitioner firm as an unsuccessful tenderer and for directing opposite parties 1 to 3 to accept the tender of the petitioner firm and to issue the sale order in favour of the petitioner firm.

(2.) ON 9.2.2003, the Court, while issuing notice to the opposite parties both in the writ petition and on the application for interim orders [W.P. (C) No. 7010 of 2002 and Misc. Case No. 5193 of 2002], ordered that in the meanwhile the opposite parties are restrained from entering into any contract with Maa Tarini Trading Corporation or any other tenderer or party and from handing over scrap materials to the said concern or any other party. Thereafter on 25.2.2003, on the prayer of the said Maa Tarini Trading Corporation in Misc. Case No. 552 of 2003 for being impleaded as an opposite party, the Court allowed said Maa Tarini Trading Corporation to be impleaded as opposite party No. 4 Misc. Case No. 500 of 2003 was filed by opposite parties 2 and 3 and Misc. Case No. 937 of 2003 was filed by opposite party No. 4 for vacating the said interim order. On 25.3.2003 the Court, however, held that considering the nature of the dispute between the parties, the Court was not inclined to vacate the interim order and instead, directed that the writ petition should be heard as early as possible. Accordingly, the writ petition was heard on 12.3.2003.

(3.) MR . Budhadeba Routray, learned counsel appearing for opposite parties 2 and 3, on the other hand, relying on the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite parties 2 and 3, submitted that pursuant to the tender notice dated 29.10.2002, seven parties including the petitioner and opposite party No. 4 came to purchase tender papers, but the then Deputy Manager (Project) Mr. A. Alii Khan did not allow opposite party No. 4 to purchase the tender papers. Opposite party No. 4 then issued a lawyer's notice dated 16.11.2002 and on receipt of the said lawyer's notice, the then Deputy Manager (Project) Mr. A., Alii Khan allowed opposite party No. 4 to purchase the tender papers. Opposite party No. 4 then alleged that on 20.11.2002, the date of submission of tender, opposite party No. 4 was prevented from submitting the tender and the tender papers and the demand draft towards E.M.D. purchased by opposite party No. 4 were snatched away by the partners of the petitioner firm. Opposite party No. 4 then filed a complaint before the Inspector in charge, Paradeep Police Station on 20.11.2002 and also requested the Deputy Manager (Project) to cancel the tender. On 22.10.2002, opposite party No. 4 addressed a letter to the Director, Dredging Corporation ofIndia, Ltd., Visakhapatnam, alleging, inter alia, that the Deputy Manager (Project) Mr. A. AIM Khan was in active collusion with the petitioner firm in not allowing the opposite party No. 4 to submit the tender. In the said letter dated 22nd November 2002 opposite party No. 4 had quoted a price of Rs. 11,35,550/ which was higher than the price quoted by the writ petitioner. On receipt of the said letter dated 22nd November 2002, one Shri U. C. Bose, Deputy Manager, Technical (Vigilance) was deputed from the Head Office at Visakhapatnam to Paradeep and Shri Bose visited Paradeep on 2.12.2002, verified relevant records and returned to Visakhapatnam and submitted a note. Opposite party No. 4 also submitted a letter dated 4.12.2002 offering a price of Rs., 12,00,000/ for the scrap materials. Thereafter, the General Manager (Technical) submitted a note dated 9.12.2002 proposing that the scrap materials should be sold to opposite party No. 4 and the said proposal was approved by the C.M.D., Dredging Corporation of India Ltd. Mr. Routray vehemently argued that these facts would show that the writ petitioner and the then Deputy Manager (Project), Paradeep, Mr. A. Alii Khan were in collusion with each other, as a result of which the scrap materials were going to be sold at a much lesser price. Mr. Routray submitted that the decision of the authorities of the Dredging Corporation of India to issue the sale order in favour of opposite party No. 4 at a price of Rs. 12,00,000/ is only to fetch the highest price for the Corporation and the authorities perhaps were of the view that by inviting fresh tender, a price of Rs. 12,00,000/ for the scrap material may not be obtained, and for this reason, while canceling the tender process did not issue a fresh tender notice inviting tenders.