Chattisgarh High Court
Jalaram Transport vs Union Of India on 10 December, 2021
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPC No. 4010 of 2021
Jalaram Transport, Through Partner - Bharat Khanderia S/o Chandu Lal
Khanderia, Aged about 58 years, R/o Sai Parisar Near Rama Magneto Mall,
Shrikant Varma Marg, Bilaspur C.G.)
Petitioner
versus
1. Union of India Through - The Secretary, Ministry of Coal, Shastri
Bhawan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi.
2. Coal India Limited A Govt. of India undertaking Through Its Chairman,
Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi.
3. General Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Vasant Vihar, Seepat
Road, Bilaspur (C.G.)
4. General Manager, (CMC) Sough Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Vasant Vihar,
Seepat Road, Bilaspur (C.G.)
5. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change Through Secretary,
Indira Parvavaran Bhawan, Lorbagh Road, New Delhi - 110003.
Respondents
_______________________________________________________________
For Petitioner : Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, Senior Advocate assisted
by Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate
For Respondents No.2 to 4 : Mr. R.K. Gupta, Advocate
For Respondent No.5 : Ms. Purnima Singh, Advocate
Date of hearing : 17.11.2021.
Date of Judgment : 10.12.2021
_______________________________________________________________
Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Goutam Bhaduri, Judge
CAV JUDGMENT
Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
Heard Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, learned senior counsel for the
petitioner, Mr. R.K. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 2 to
4 and Ms. Purnima Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1
and 5.
2. The petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the business of
loading and transportation of coal of South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL).
Pursuant to an e-Tender notice dated 11.02.2021, bearing N.I.T. No.
SECL/BSP/CMC/e-Tender/439, the petitioner participated in the tender
process. Subsequently, Letter of Intent (LOI) dated 13.07.2021 was issued for
executing tendered work for a total value of Rs. 23,59,57,171.97 for a period of
1095 days, as detailed in the tender notice. The petitioner commenced the
work with effect from 30.07.2021. It is averred that LOI will violate the
environmental clearance condition of the mine as total awarded capacity by the
LOI exceeds the environmental clearance.
3. By the writ petition, writ petitioner challenges an e-Tender notice
No.SECL/BSP/CMC/e-Tender/475 dated 04.09.2021, with particular reference
to Clause (c) (4) thereof.
4. Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, learned senior counsel for the petitioner
submits that impugned tender has been issued for the same work that the
petitioner is executing pursuant to LOI issued on 13.07.2021 and during the
subsistence of the contract, issuance of the said tender is, ex facie, arbitrary
and illegal.
5. In the reply filed by the respondents No.2 to 4, it is stated that the
work offered to be executed in the two tender notices are entirely different, as
by the impugned tender, crushing of coal to (-) 100mm size by mobile crusher
is meant for coal mined through drilling and blasting mode, which is not the
case in the e-Tender notice dated 11.02.2021. It is pleaded that mining
capacity, calculated on the basis of ideal per day production capacity, though
higher than the environment clearance, is of no consequence, as the contractor
entrusted to do the mining by surface miner is not able to achieve normal per
day production during rainy season, thereby resulting in huge shortfall in
production and when the petitioner was also the contractor, it had also failed to
achieve the production target.
6. By filing a rejoinder-affidavit, the petitioner reiterated that the same
work, as was allotted to the petitioner, is sought to be awarded by issuing the
impugned tender.
7. Mr. Bharat, learned senior counsel for the petitioner makes only a
pointed submission to the effect that scope of work of the e-Tender notice
dated 04.09.2021, having regard to the description therein, is same as what
was offered to the petitioner pursuant to the e-Tender notice dated 11.02.2021.
It is his submission that during the subsistence of the contract with the
petitioner, the respondent authorities could not have issued another tender with
the same scope of work and therefore, the impugned e-Tender notice is liable
to be quashed.
8. Inviting our attention to the reply-affidavit filed, Mr. R.K. Gupta,
learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 2 to 4 submits that scope of
work is entirely different and the contention advanced by the petitioner to
contrary is mis-conceived.
9. Having regard to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel
for the parties, the only question that is required to be answered by this Court
is whether the description of work in the e-Tender notice dated 04.09.2021 is
same as that of the e-Tender notice dated 11.02.2021.
10. It is relevant to note that the location in both the tender notices are
shown to be Jampali OC, Tehsil - Gharghoda, District : Raigarh, State :
Chhattisgarh. The description of work in the e-Tender notice dated 11.02.2021
is hiring of surface miner and allied equipments for mechanical excavation /
cutting of coal / coal measure strata & deployment of dozer on hiring basis for
removal of ridges left out coal / coal measure strata while working coal seam in
the mine. It is indicated therein that the work involves extraction / breaking of
coal in slices / layers to lump size of (-) 100mm without resorting to drilling and
blasting at Jampali OCP.
11. The description of work, in the e-Tender notice dated 04.09.2021,
goes to show that the same is for hiring of (a) Pay Loaders for mechanical
transfer of uncrushed and crushed coal into tippers at various coal faces, at
surface coal stock and also at mobile crusher, and (b) hiring of tippers for
transportation of coal from various coal faces to siding, surface coal stocks and
mobile crusher and for coal transportation from coal stocks to mobile crusher
and mobile crusher to railway siding.
12. Description of work at (a) and (b) in the e-Tender notice dated
04.09.2021 has no connection with the e-Tender notice dated 11.02.2021.
Clause (c)(4) of description of work relates to hiring of mobile crusher for
crushing of coal to (-)100mm size for a period of 1095 days at Jampali open
cast mine in the manner prescribed at Sl.Nos. 1, 2(a), 2(b), 2(c), 3(a), 3(b), 4,
5(a) and 5(b). Since heavy reliance is placed to buttress the contention that
the tenders are identical in clause c(4) of description of work of e-Tender notice
dated 04.09.2021, it would be appropriate to quote the same herein under, as
follows :
"c) 4) Hiring of 01 no. of mobile crusher for
crushing of blasted coal into (-) 100mm size in all dimension
including providing and installation of suitable and matching
crushing arrangement with all infrastructure including dust
suppression arrangement for minimum capacity of 2170
TPD for a period of 1095 days for total quantity of
23,76,150Te. The equipment includes operation and
maintenance of mobile crusher machine."
13. The e-Tender notice dated 11.02.2021 relates to extraction/
breaking of coal in slices / layers to lump size of (-) 100mm without resorting to
drilling and blasting. In contrast to the same, hiring of 01 no. of mobile crusher
is for crushing of blasted coal into (-) 100mm size in all dimension. Therefore,
there is fundamental difference in the aforesaid two tender notices in that the
work in e-Tender notice dated 11.02.2021 involves breaking of coal in slices /
layers to lump size of (-) 100mm without resorting to drilling and blasting
whereas clause c(4) of e-Tender notice dated 04.09.2021 is for crushing of
"blasted coal" into (-) 100mm size. Therefore, the scope of work, in our
considered opinion, is different and the contention of the petitioner that same
work is sought to be allotted by e-Tender notice dated 04.09.2021 is not
tenable.
14. In that view of the matter, we find no merit in this writ petition and
accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
15. Interim order, if any, shall stand vacated. No cost.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arup Kumar Goswami) (Goutam Bhaduri)
Chief Justice Judge
Chandra
