Sri Avantika Contractors P Limiteds P. ... vs The Union Of India

Telangana High Court

Sri Avantika Contractors P Limiteds P. ... vs The Union Of India on 16 May, 2024

      THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL

            WRIT PETITION No.13357 OF 2024

ORDER:

Heard Sri K.V.Bhanu Prasad, learned Senior Counsel appears for Sri V.S.R. Avadhani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.T. Kalyan, learned counsel appears for Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for the respondent.

2. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioner submitted his bid for sale of coal in Sattupalli Block-III Coal mine. Pursuant to bid, an agreement dated 08.01.2024 was entered into. As per the tender notification, data of block was prepared by reputed Government company i.e., SCCL and is verified and confirmed by another Government agency i.e., CMPDIL. The petitioner bona fidely acted upon the data and paid Rs.12.33 crore towards cost of the said data. The petitioner never thought that the said companies can provide incorrect or misleading data by suppression of material facts. In order to bolster this, learned Senior Counsel submits that the last report prepared by the said companies relates to the year 2004. Considering the aforesaid, the petitioner preferred a representation. A meeting was held on 18.03.2024, 2 consisting the officers of Ministry of Coal, SCCL, CMPDIL and petitioner's company. The grievance of the petitioner was reduced into writing in the minutes of meeting and thereafter, the petitioner preferred two representations dated 18.04.2024 and 22.04.2024. The respondents, without considering the said representations, passed the impugned order dated 08.05.2024 and directed the petitioner to submit Performance Bank Guarantee till May, 2024.

3. The argument of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner firstly is that the representations of the petitioner dated 18.04.2024 and 22.04.2024 although were referred in the impugned order dated 08.05.2024, there is no discussion regarding the said representations in the body of the entire order. In other words, the respondents have failed to assign any reason in relation to the said representations dated 18.04.2024 and 22.04.2024. Therefore, the impugned order dated 08.05.2024 be set aside and the respondents be directed to pass a fresh order by taking into account the said two representations. Secondly it is argued that the site and data in relation to land in question is of old origin i.e., 2004 and therefore, the respondents are bound to provide recent data.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order and submits that the order dated 08.05.2024 is passed after considering the said two representations. No other point is pressed by both the parties.

5. I heard the parties at length on admission as well as interim relief. The relevant para of impugned order dated 08.05.2024 reads as under:

"2. In this regarding following is informed:

a. Bidder must do due diligence before submission of bid for a coal block. There is provision of physical inspection of the block/mine by the prospective bidders prior to submitting bid. The relevant clause (Point 3.6.1) of the Standard Tender Document is given below:

"Prior to submission of Technical Bid, the Bidders are encouraged to undertake the site visit to Coal Mine, at their own cost and risk and ascertain for themselves the site conditions, location, communication, climate, availability of power. Applicable Laws and regulations, and any other matter considered relevant by them in the manner provided herein."

b. On request of M/s SACIL a meeting was conducted under Additional Secretary (MoC) & Nominated Authority on 18.03.2024 to address the issues raised and it was observed that these issues should have been addressed during the pre-bid meeting itself. The bidder was advised to initiate actions for the development of the coal block as per the prescribed milestones.

c. Responsibility of development of coal block as a separate block lies with M/s SACIL and allocation order for coal block is awaited as extension has been sought by M/s SACIL. However, M/s SCCL was asked to extend all support to M/s SACIL for development of coal block during meeting held on 18.03.2024.

d. As per SOP, two extensions has already been granted to M/s SACIL for furnishing Performance Bank Guarantee till May 15, 2024."

(Emphasis Supplied)

6. A plain reading of the impugned order shows that the respondents have reproduced Clause 3.6.1 of Standard Tender Document and opined that a bidder should have exercised due diligence before submission of bid of coal block. Having failed to do so, after signing the agreement at this stage, this prayer cannot be accepted. Pertinently, no amount of argument is advanced to wriggle out of this finding in the impugned order, which is founded upon Clause 3.6.1 of Standard Tender Document.

7. Apart from this, the respondents have placed reliance on Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), pursuant to which two extensions were permitted to petitioner for furnishing Performance Bank Guarantee. No attack was forthcoming on this aspects during the arguments.

8. So far as the petitioner's prayer for deciding his representations dated 18.04.2024 and 22.04.2024 is concerned, it is apt to mention that in order to obtain a Writ or Order for this purpose in the nature of Mandamus, the petitioner has to satisfy that he has a legal right to the 5 performance of a legal duty by a party against whom Writ is sought for and such right must be a subsisting right on the date of the petition. The duty that may be enjoined by Mandamus must be one imposed by the Constitution, a statute, common law or by rules or orders having force of law (See Director of Settlements, A.P. Vs. M.R. Apparao 1, Municipal Corpn. of Greater Mumbai Vs. Rafiqunnisa M. Khalifa 2 and a Division Bench judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Indore Development Authority Vs. Sansar Publication Pvt. Ltd. 3).

9. In the instant case, there was no statutory provision of preferring representations dated 18.04.2024 and 22.04.2024. There was no statutory obligation for the respondents to decide the said representations. Yet, the said representations have been decided in the light of relevant clause of Standard Tender Document. It could not be pointed out that clause 3.6.1 of Standard Tender Document cannot form basis of impugned order. The petitioner did not exercise 'due diligence' before submission of bid for a coal block. 1 (2002) 4 SCC 638 2 (2019) 5 SCC 119 3 2019 SCC OnLine MP 418 6

10. It is settled law that in contractual matters, the scope of interference of this Court in Writ jurisdiction is very limited. The impugned order is passed by the competent authority which took a plausible view based on the relevant clause of Standard Tender Document. There is no ingredient on which interference can be made and interim relief can be granted.

11. Therefore, admission is declined and the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_________________ SUJOY PAUL, J Date: 16.05.2024 TJMR