Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Bolebam Service Station vs Sandip Kuila on 17 May, 2023
Bench: A.S. Bopanna, Hima Kohli
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No. 3824 OF 2013
(arising out of SLP(C) No.3778/2023)
BOLBAM SERVICE STATION Appellant(s)
VERSUS
SANDIP KUILA & ORS. Respondent(s)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL No. 3825 OF 2013
(arising out of SLP(C) No. 3979/2023
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard the learned senior counsel for the appellants, the respondent no.1, who has appeared in person and the learned ASG for respondents no. 2 to 5 and perused the appeal papers.
3. Though, the appeal papers are bulky and elaborate arguments were addressed, the matter lies in a narrow compass. The Order dated 06.02.2023 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta though, impugned herein, essentially endorses the order dated Signature Not Verified28.07.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.A. Digitally signed by Nisha Khulbey Date: 2023.05.20 13:02:58 IST Reason: No. 14420/2022. Hence, we take note of the nature of the consideration made therein and the ultimate directions issued.
2
4. In that regard, the respondent no.1 herein, who was the Writ Petitioner therein, had assailed the action of the respondent no.2 (Indian Oil Corporation Limited) in awarding the letter of Acceptance (LoA) dated 30.06.2022. In that regard, the major issue which had arisen for consideration is with regard to the manner in which the condition no.V A(d) is to be construed while considering the age of the vehicle for the purpose of ultimately considering the successful bidder on that aspect.
5. The learned Single Judge, on taking note that the requirement therein, had been deviated by the respondent no.2 i.e. the tender inviting authority in contacting the manufacturer of the vehicle to find out the date of manufacture, it was held that such procedure was not contemplated under the tender process and therefore, there being deviation after the commencement of the process, was not justified. It is in that light the action of the respondent no.2 (Indian Oil Corporation Limited) was set aside and a direction has been issued to issue fresh tender under the accepted framework of Rules governing such tender.
6. Having heard the learned senior counsel for the appellants, the respondent party in person and the learned ASG, we are of the opinion that insofar as the deviation of the procedure as commented upon by the learned Single Judge and accepted by the Division Bench, the same is justified. However, the question is as 3 to whether the directions issued to issue fresh tender and re-start the process, is justified. In this regard, we are of the opinion that considering that the learned Single Judge had noted that there was a deviation in the process, the appropriate course ought to have to been to reverse the process to the stage where it was deviated and direct the respondent no.2 (Indian Oil Corporation Limited) to re-do the process from the stage at which the deviation had occurred so that the conditions, as indicated in the tender documents and the statutory provisions with reference to the Act and Rules as indicated in the Order of the learned Single Judge., are strictly complied with and thereafter a decision is taken to award the contract. This is so since the accepted framework and the Rules governing the tender was already in place.
7. Therefore, to that extent, we modify the Order passed by the learned Single Judge directing to call for fresh tender. We, accordingly, clarify that the respondent no.2 (Indian Oil Corporation Limited), i.e. the tender inviting authority, is permitted to re-do the process based on the very same documents that had been received from the successful bidders and assess the age of the vehicle as provided under the tender document and the statutory provisions with reference to the Act and Rules as indicated in the Order of the learned Single Judge, more particularly, Clause V A(d) of Notice 4 Inviting Tender (NIT) as also the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and thereafter arrive at a conclusion in the matter to issue fresh contracts.
8. With the said clarification and directions, the appeals stand disposed of along with pending application(s), if any.
...................J. (A.S. BOPANNA) ...................J. (HIMA KOHLI) New Delhi 17th May, 2023 5 ITEM NO.41 COURT NO.9 SECTION XVI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 3778/2023 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 06-02-2023 in FMA No. 1266/2022 passed by the High Court At Calcutta) BOLEBAM SERVICE STATION Petitioner(s) VERSUS SANDIP KUILA & ORS. Respondent(s) IA No. 37348/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT aND IA No. 87600/2023 - PERMISSION TO APPEAR AND ARGUE IN PERSON) WITH SLP(C) No. 3979/2023 (XVI) IA No. 68490/2023 - APPLICATION FOR TAKING ON RECORD IA No. 39812/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IA No. 87623/2023 - PERMISSION TO APPEAR AND ARGUE IN PERSON) Date : 17-05-2023 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI For Petitioner(s) Mr. Manan Kumar Mishra, Sr. Adv.
M/S. Ram Sankar & Co, AOR Ms. Anjul Dwivedi, Adv.
Dr. Ram Sankar, Adv.
Mr. T.s. Nanda Kumar, Adv. Mr. Sai Gridhar, Adv.
Mr. Krishna Pandey, Adv. Mr. Anand Kumar V, Adv.
Mr. Aditya Kishor Tyagi, Adv. Mr. G. Jai Singh, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Respondent-in-person Ms. Madhavi Gorada Divan, A.S.G. Ms. Mala Narayan, Adv.
Mr. Shashwat Goel, AOR 6 UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The appeals are disposed of along with the pending application(s), if any, in terms of the signed order.
(NISHA KHULBEY) (DIPTI KHURANA) SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(signed order is placed on the file)