Kerala High Court
M/S N Tech Tools And Traders vs M/S. Bharat Petroluem Corporation Ltd on 13 January, 2012
Author: S.Siri Jagan
Bench: S.Siri Jagan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN
FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2012/30TH POUSHA 1933
WPC.No. 1374 of 2012 (V)
-----------------------
PETITIONER:
===========
M/S N TECH TOOLS AND TRADERS
KUZHIVELIPADY, EDATHALA P.O,
ALUVA 683 561
REPRESENTED BY ITS SOLE PROPRIETOR
IBRAHIM MUHAMMAD.
BY ADVS.SRI.GEORGE THOMAS (MEVADA)(SR.)
SRI.MANU GEORGE KURUVILLA
RESPONDENTS:
============
1. M/S. BHARAT PETROLUEM CORPORATION LTD.
(KOCHI REFINERY) AMBALAMUGAL,
PIN 682 302.
2. M/S.E-PROCUREMENT TECHNOLOGIES LTD,
A 201 & 208, WALL STREET,II
NEAR GUJARAT COLLEGE, ELLISBRIDGE
AHAMEDABAD 380 006, GUJRAT.
3. DY.GENERAL MANAGER (P&CS),
M/S. BHARAT PETROLUEM CORPORATION LTD
(KOCHI REFINERY) AMBALAMUGAL,
PIN 682 302.
4. CHIEF MANAGER (P&CS)
M/S. BHARAT PETROLUEM CORPORATION LTD
(KOCHI REFINERY) AMBALAMUGAL, PIN 682 302.
5. M./S.GURUDEV ENTERPRISES
55, PEDHU STREET, MINT STREET
CHENNAI 79.
BY ADV.SRI.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, SC, BPC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 20-01-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JV
WPC NO: 1374/2012
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
P1: COPY OF PRO FORMA FOR AUCTION AND ANNEXUES
P2: COPY OF E-MAIL SENT BY PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT
DATED 13.01.2012
P3: COPY OF COMMUNICATION SENT BY FAX DATED 13.01.2012
P4: COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER DATED
16.01.2012
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO JUDGE
JV
S.SIRI JAGAN, J.
==================
W.P.(C).No. 1374 of 2012
==================
Dated this the 20th day of January, 2012
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner participated in the online auction conducted by the 1st respondent through the 2nd respondent for sale of scrap. While the petitioner was actively participating in the auction, the online system suddenly hung, as a result of which, the petitioner could not place his final bid on record. The petitioner was willing to quote up to the rate of ` 24,000/- per metric ton. But, in the meanwhile, the auction was knocked down for ` 19,200/- per metric ton. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was prevented from placing his final bid on record not because of any fault of the petitioner, but because of the fault in the online system itself. In the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed Ext.P4 representation in this regard. The petitioner seeks a direction to the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P4 expeditiously.
2. The learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent submits that the same can be considered within 20 days.
3. Having heard both sides, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P4, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the all concerned, within 20 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till then, the bids shall not be finalised.
Sd/-
sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
///True copy///
P.A. to Judge