Jharkhand High Court
Sociedade De Fomento Industrial Pvt. ... vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors. ... ... Opp. ... on 21 September, 2022
Author: Ravi Ranjan
Bench: Chief Justice, Sujit Narayan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cont. Case (C) No. 562 of 2022
Sociedade De Fomento Industrial Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.
..... ..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand & Ors. ... ... Opp. Parties
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. M.S. Mittal, Sr. Advocate
: Mr. Salona Mittal, Advocate
For the Opp. Parties : Mr. P.A.S. Pati, G.A-II
---------
Oral Order 03/Dated: 21.09.2022 Heard the parties.
It appears from the supplementary show cause affidavit filed on behalf of the authorities of the State of Jharkhand, Department of Mines that a Corrigendum (Notice) dated 19.09.2022 has been issued by stating that tender invited for Lodhapat Bauxite Block, Gumla, Jharkhand which was earlier postponed till further orders in the light of the order dated 24.08.2022 passed by this Court in L.P.A. No.165 of 2022, now has been replaced with the words "recalled".
Mr. M.S. Mittal, learned senior counsel submits that the contempt is not purged as there is no compliance of the direction of this Court and S.L.P has also not been filed till date.
We had allowed the writ petition and held in paragraph 17, 18 and 21 of the order for disobedience of which the present contempt petition has been filed reads as under:
"17. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, we are of the view that the judgment rendered by Hon‟ble Apex Court propounding therein the ratio to invoke the power of judicial review, in the given facts of this case, is well applicable since the decision for not proceeding on the basis of second attempt of auction process even though the same is provided under the -2- statutory provision, basis upon which the second attempt of auction process is initiated but the authorities by not proceeding in pursuance to the said decision dated 11.06.2020 of the Tender Evaluation Committee, is contrary to the statutory provision and as such the such action will well be considered to be unreasonable and arbitrary.
Considering the statutory provision the Tender Evaluation Committee has already taken decision for second attempt of auction process.
18. This Court, after having discussed the fact in entirety as also the legal position, gone through the order passed by learned Single Judge and has found therefrom that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the decision of the Tender Evaluation Committee which was taken on 11.06.2020, which is in accordance with the provision as contained under proviso to Rule 9(12) of the Rules but the learned Single Judge has gone into general principle that the power is with the Government to cancel the tender and issue fresh one. But such principle is to be tested on the basis of applicable rule.
Herein, the specific rule is either to go for de novo tender or to go for the second attempt of auction process. The duly constituted Tender Evaluation Committee since has taken decision to go for the second attempt of auction process, therefore, it is not available for the Department to take another decision that too by the Director of the Department prevailing upon the decision taken by the Tender Evaluation Committee, considering the fact of statutory provision that the Tender Evaluation Committee has already taken decision for second attempt of auction process.
Further, the reason upon which the writ petition has been dismissed is based upon the consideration of the fact by the learned Single Judge that in case if one bidder will be allowed in the auction process the same will be contrary to the public policy but while giving such finding the learned Single Judge has not appreciated that when the statutory provision is there for proceeding with the tender process even if in case of single bidder, as would appear from provision contained in the rule, it cannot be said that if the tender process would be allowed to proceed in a case of single bidder, it will be contrary to the public policy rather action is required to be taken by the Tender committee if not taken as per the statutory provision then only it can be said to contrary to the policy decision, but, herein, since the decision for second attempt in the auction process has been decided to be resorted to, as would appear from the decision of the Tender Evaluation Committee dated 11.06.2020, it cannot be said to be contrary to the public policy.
21. In consequence thereof, the instant intra-court appeal stands allowed as also the writ petition stands allowed."-3-
In view of the aforesaid direction, the State was to proceed in accordance with the direction contained in our order but it has not been done so far, therefore, this proceeding cannot be closed today.
We are granting two weeks' time after Durga Puja Holidays either for compliance of our order or for bringing any stay order from the Hon'ble Supreme Court as it is contended that the State authorities are intending to file S.L.P against the concerned order passed by this Bench.
Put up this case on 01.11.2022.
(Dr. Ravi Ranjan, C.J.) (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) APK/Saket