South Eastern Coalfields Limited vs M/S Sujyoti India Private Limited
2022 Latest Caselaw 880 Chatt

                                    1


                                                                  NAFR
              HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                       Writ Appeal No. 85 of 2022


1.   South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Through Its Chairman cum

     Managing Director, Having Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District Bilaspur

     (C.G.)


2.   The Director Technical (O), South Eastern Coalfields Limited,

     Having Its Office at SECL Headquarter, Seepat Road, P.O. No. 60,

     Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District Bilaspur (C.G.)


3.   The Director (Finance), South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Having

     Its Office at SECL Headquarter, Seepat Road, P.O. No. 60, Bilaspur

     Chhattisgarh, District Bilaspur (C.G.)


4.   The General Manager (MM), South Eastern Coalfields Limited,

     Having Its Office at SECL Headquarter, Seepat Road P.O. No. 60,

     Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District Bilaspur (C.G.).


                                                          ---- Appellants


                                 Versus


     M/s Sujyoti India Private Limited Through Its Director-Mr. Shashank

     Muley, Having Its Office At Nexue Point, Second Floor, Vidhan

     Bhawan Square, Civil Lines, Nagpur 440001 Maharashtra, District

     Nagapur, Maharashtra.


                                                        ---- Respondent

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Appellants : Mr. R.K. Gupta, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Chandravanshi, Judge

Judgment on Board

Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

21.02.2022

Heard Mr. R.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants.

2. This writ appeal is preferred against an order dated 26.11.2021

passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (C) No. 4777 of 2021,

directing refund of earnest money of an amount of Rs.10,00,000/-

deposited by the petitioner within a period of 60 days.

3. The order of the learned Single Judge reads as follows:

"Heard.

1. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner

that the respondents authorities invited tender by

notice dated 23-10-2015 for supply of imported and

indigenous bearings. The petitioner submitted the bid

and also deposited earnest money an amount of

Rs.10,00,000/- for the same bid. The tender was not

finalized and it is informed that the whole tender

process has been cancelled. The amount of EMD has

been withheld by the respondent authorities without

any reason so far. The petitioner company has made

repeated requests to the respondent authorities to

return the EMD, but the same could not be returned.

The petitioner then obtained information under Right to

Information Act which is Annexure-P/1, in which it is

informed that, money suit has been field against the

petitioner company before the Commercial Court of

Chhattisgarh at Raipur with respect to a different

tender, therefore, the EMD in the present tender

process has been retained by the respondents. Hence,

it is prayed that appropriate order be passed.

2. Learned counsel representing the respondents

opposes the submission.

3. Considered on the submissions. Perused the

documents filed along with the petition. As it appears

that there is no valid reason present for retention of the

EMD deposited by the petitioner way back in the year

2015 and further, that the tender process has also

come to an end without any result, therefore, the

petitioner has entitlement for return of the EMD.

Hence, this petition is disposed off at motion stage.

Respondents No. 3 and 4 are directed to grant refund

to the petitioner of the EMD which has been deposited

in the year 2015, within a time limit of 60 days. With

these observations, the petition is disposed off."

4. Mr. Gupta submits that though the aforesaid order was passed in

the presence of the learned counsel for the appellants, the appeal came

to be disposed of on the very first day of hearing and as such, the

appellants could not effectively put forth their case and therefore, on the

ground of violation of principles of natural justice, the impugned order is

liable to be set aside and the matter is liable to be remitted back to the

learned Single Judge for fresh consideration.

5. A ground has been taken that the appellants are striving hard to

recover loss of Rs.4,78,54,149.89/- from the writ petitioner/respondent.

The said aspect was noticed by the learned Single Judge, as in the order

of the learned Single Judge, it is noted that a money suit was filed against

the petitioner company before the Commercial Court of Chhattisgarh at

Raipur in connection with a different tender. It may be that the appellants

have filed a suit for recovery of certain amount, if any, from the petitioner.

In this appeal, however, no material has been placed seeking to even

indicate as to how the appellants could have retained the earnest money

after cancellation of the tender process.

6. Principles of natural justice cannot be put in a straight-jacket

formula. In a case of present nature, when the appellant has failed to

demonstrate any prejudice caused because of non-grant of opportunity of

hearing, we are of the considered opinion that no useful purpose will be

served in remanding the matter to the learned Single Judge for fresh

consideration. Taking that view, we see no good ground to interfere with

the order of the learned Single Judge.

7. Accordingly, finding no merit, writ appeal is dismissed. No cost.

                              Sd/-                                     Sd/-
                    (Arup Kumar Goswami)                      (N.K. Chandravanshi)
                         Chief Justice                                Judge
Brijmohan