Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Jammu & Kashmir High Court

M/S Subash Chander Gupta And Co. And Anr. vs Uoi And Ors on 18 December, 2017

Author: Alok Aradhe

Bench: Alok Aradhe

      HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU

OWP No.1995/2017, MP No.01/2017
                                                             Date of order: 18.12.2017
M/s Subash Chander Gupta and Co. and Ors.                         Vs.   UOI and Ors.
Coram:
        Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Aradhe, Judge
Appearing counsel:
For Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. C S Gupta, Advocate.
For respondent (s)          : Mrs. Sindhu Sharma, ASGI.

      Petition is admitted for hearing. With consent of the learned counsel for the
parties, the matter is heard finally.

      In this petition, the petitioners who are registered as Contractors with
MSTC Ltd. which is a Government of India undertaking and deals with sale of
old military scrap, inter alia, have assailed the validity of the communication
dated 16.11.2017 as well as direction to the respondents to issue fresh auction
notice to enable all the persons to participate in the e-auction.

      Facts giving rise to the filing of writ petition briefly stated are that

respondent No.2 issued two tender notices/ e-auction notice calling upon all the registered contractors to submit their bids for sale of as many as 54 lots of various items. As per the terms and conditions of the e-tender notice, e-auction was to be held on 21.11.2017 at 11.00 am till 5.00 pm. As per the terms and conditions of the NIT, every contractor was required to deposit pre-bid EMD of Rs.10,00,000/- in the account of MSTC for participating in the auction on or before 20.11.2017. The petitioners deposited the requisite EMD, however, by another communication dated 20.11.2017, the respondents revised the terms and conditions of the notice inviting tenders and asked the bidders to submit an amount of Rs.1,06,00,000/- up to 21.11.2017 and on the aforesaid date, the bid was required to be opened. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioners have approached this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the terms and conditions of the auction notice have been arbitrarily changed and only one day has been given to the petitioners to deposit the Earnest Money Deposit which was enhanced to ten times. It is further submitted that petitioners could not participate in the bid as sufficient opportunity was not given to them to deposit the EMD. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Mahabir Auto Stores v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited, 1990 Legal Eagle 129 and in the case of Monarch Infrastructure Private Limited v. Commissioner, Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation and others, 2000 Legal Eagle 965.

On the other hand, Mrs. Sindhu Sharma, learned ASGI has submitted that pre bid amount was changed on 17.11.2017 and the bidders were given time up to 21.11.2017 to deposit the bid amount. Thus, the contention of the petitioners that they were given only a day's time to deposit the pre bid amount is factually incorrect. It is further submitted that pursuant to the revision of bid, three bidders had participated and one of them has been declared the highest bidder who has been called for negotiations.

In view of the aforesaid subsequent development which has taken place during the pendency of the petition and in the absence of the successful bidder, the adjudication of the issue raised by the petitioners would amount to exercise in futility. Therefore, the instant writ petition is disposed of with the liberty to the petitioners to file fresh writ petition, if so advised, after impleading the successful bidder. With the aforesaid liberty, the writ petition stands disposed of, along with connected MP.

(Alok Aradhe) Judge Jammu 18.12.2017 Raj Kumar OWP No.1995/2017, MP No.01/2017 Page 2 of 2