Gauhati High Court
Mayur Roller Flour Mills vs Food Corporation Of India And 5 Ors on 25 August, 2021
Author: Prasanta Kumar Deka
Bench: Prasanta Kumar Deka
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010130682021
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/4203/2021
MAYUR ROLLER FLOUR MILLS
A DULY REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM, HAVING ITS REGISTERED
OFFICE AT 157, GS ROAD, CHRISTIAN BASTI, DISPUR, KAMRUP(M) ASSAM
AND HAVING ITS FLOOR MILL AT NH 31, CHOKIGATE, PO CHANGSARI,
DIST KAMRUP , ASSAM AND IS REPRESENTED BY ITS DULY AUTHORISED
PARTNER SRI NIKHILESH MORE, SON OF SRI DEEPAK KUMAR MORE,
RESIDENT OF 157M GS ROAD, CHRISTIAN BASTI, DISPUR GUWAHATI
,KAMRUP M ASSAM 781005
VERSUS
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS
16-20, BARAKHAMBA LANE, NEW DELHI 110001, INDIA AND HAVING ITS
REGIONAL OFFICE AT ASSAM REGION AT PALTAN BAZAR, GUWAHATI
781008 AND IS REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING
DIRECTOR, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, 16-20, BARAKHAMBA LANE,
NEW DELHI 110001. INDIA
2:THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA
ASSAM
16-20 BARAKHAMBA LANE
NEW DELHI 110001
INDIA
3:THE GENERAL MANAGER
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA
ASSAM REGION M.T TOWER
GS ROAD
PALTAN BAZAR
Page No.# 2/4
GUWAHATI ASSAM 781008
4:MJUNCTION SERVICES LIMITED
GODREJ WATERSIDE
3RD FLOOR
TOWER 1
PLOT V BLOCK DP
SECTOR
V
SALT LAKE
KOLKATTA
ASSAM 700091
5:SHREE MANIPUR ROLLER FLOUR MILLS PVT. LTD.
THANGAL BAZAR
IMPHAL
MANIPUR
795001
6:SHREE AGRO FOOD PRODUCTS LLP
HOUSE NO. 3A/201
RUKHMINI DEVI DHANUKA AND OTHERS
S.J ROAD
BALTI KARKHANA
ATHGAON
GUWAHATI
ASSAM 78100
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR G N SAHEWALLA
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, F C I
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRASANTA KUMAR DEKA
ORDER
Date : 25.8.2021 Heard Mr. D. Senapati, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. K. Roy, learned Standing Counsel, Food Corporation of India (FCI) and Dr. A. Todi, learned counsel for private respondent Nos. 5 and 6.
Page No.# 3/4 Vide tender notice dated 13.8.2021 the General Manager (Region), FCI sought for financial bid from the FCI empanelled bulk consumer/traders through E-Auction in respect of URS-wheat and amongst various depots, Changsari was one of the depot with 3000 MT of URS Wheat put on auction. As per tender schedule, starting date and time for online bidding was from 18.8.2021 from 11 AM and the end date and time for online bid was fixed on 18.8.2021 at 2 PM . The petitioner was one of the participants in the said E-Auction and due to "latency" in the server of the respondent No. 4, initially the petitioner faced problem in uploading the bids. The petitioner informed the concerned authority through his e-mail on 18.8.2021 at 12.04 P.M. Due to the said problem arising out of "latency" the petitioner time to time informed the respondent about the problem faced in uploading the bids. The respondent No. 4 took note of the problem arising out of "latency" in its server and vide its email dated 18.8.2021 at 3.57 PM informed the concerned bidder that the auction would resume at 4 PM and continue till 6 AM on 18.8.2021 . Subsequently vide another email at 5.28 PM on 18.8.2021 the time was further extended till 7 PM .
On 19.8.2021 at 10.52 AM the respondent No. 4 through e-mail informed the bidders that due to problem arising out of "latency" on 18.8.2021 it was resuming the auction from 11 AM on 19.8.2021 till 2 PM. The said auction on the part of the respondent No. 4 as submitted by Mr. Senapati, was with an intent to favour the private respondents inasmuch the time extension notices were issued at the nick of time causing inconvenience to the bidders like the petitioner to upload the fluctuating bid. Finally the list of selected bidders alongwith the bids were published by the respondent No. 4 wherein the private respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were shown as successful bid auction purchaser at Serial Nos. 1 and 2. Being aggrieved by the said action the petitioner submitted its representation to the respondent No. 2 with a prayer to cancel the auction of Changsari depot in the tender dated 13.8.2021 on the ground that the bidding process was done in violation of the terms and condition of the tender documents. In support of said contention Mr. Senapati submits if at all the defects of "latency" was persisting, under such circumstances the respondent No. 3 was supposed to cancel the said tender dated 13.8.2021 instead of extension of time beyond the period of the end date which was 2 PM on 18.8.2021. Such act gives an impression that the extension in violation of the terms and conditions of the tender was with an oblique purpose Page No.# 4/4 for accommodating the blue eyed bidders . Accordingly ,Mr. Senapati sought for interference with the tender process and the outcome thereof.
Mr. Roy on the other hand, objected to the submission made by Mr. Senapati . It is submitted that he had received instruction that in terms of the said tender process already release order of the materials were issued on deposit of the auction price by the private respondent Nos. 5 and 6. However he fairly submits that if at all the petitioner is aggrieved he may move the appropriate forum. Mr. Roy also submits that such type of auction sale are carried out on weekly basis and the question of passing any interim order does not arise inasmuch the petitioner can very well take part in the subsequent e-Auction bid.
I have given due consideration to the submission of Mr. Senapati learned counsel for the petitioner that as end date and time for online bidding was over as per tender notice dated 13.8.2021 the respondent No. 4 was supposed to cancel in tender due to the problems surfaced . But in the present case the respondent No.4 being the service provider of FCI extended the time period whereafter the petitioner also participated . Under such circumstances the defect in the server is an admitted fact. However the petitioner had already expressed its grievance in the representation dated 21.8.2021 before the respondent No. 3 . Accordingly this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No. 3 to dispose of the representation dated 21.8.2021 and pass appropriate order within a period of 15(fifteen) days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant