Computech International Ltd. And ... vs Oil And Natural Gas Commission ...
1995 Latest Caselaw 735 Del

JUDGMENT

M.K. Sharma, J.

(1) In this petition the petitioner seeks for quashing of the letter No. MAT/IND/SCON/E- A/002/91-92 dated 25.4.1995 issued by the General Manager (MAP), Oil & Natural Gas Commission Limited, notifying that the telex/Letter of Intent dated 16.11.1993 conveying Oil & Natural Gas Commission's intention to award the work of processing of land and marine seismic data would stand terminated on expiry of 30 days from the date of the said notice. The petitioner in this petition has further sought for a direction to the respondents to act in accordance with law and the provisions and conditions as laid down in the tender notice.

(2) In pursuance of an advertisement issued by the respondents inviting tenders to get some of its 2D Seismic data processed, the petitioner submitted its bid for the said tender. By letter dated 16.11.1993 the petitioner was informed by the respondents that the respondents intended to award tender to the petitioner. Subsequent thereto inspite of repeated requests of the petitioner the respondents did not execute the formal agreement and instead by their impugned letter dated 25.4.1995 informed the petitioner that their telex/letter of intent dated 16.11.1993 would stand terminated w.e.f. 25.5.1995 in exercise of powers vested in the respondent under clause 4.12.1.

(3) The respondents have contested the writ petition and have filed a counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, a preliminary objection has been raised with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition in view of lack of territorial jurisdiction.

(4) It is stated in the counter affidavit that the impugned order was issued from Dehradun and that the notice inviting tender was floated from Dehradun and the petitioner submitted its bid at Dehradun. The bids were processed and various decisions were taken in Dehradun and that the telex intimation of the intention of the respondent to enter into a contract was issued from Dehradun and as such no cause of action in whole or in part has arisen has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this court.

(5) In this connection we may, however, refer to the contents of the impugned order dated 25.4.1995. A bare perusal of which shall make it apparent that the Registered office of the respondents is located at New Delhi. That being the position, it cannot be said that this court lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present petition.

(6) Our attention has been drawn to the impugned letter dated 25.4.1995 intimating the petitioner that his telex/letter of intent dated 16.11.1993 would stand terminated. A bare perusal of the said letter would show that no reason has been assigned in the impugned order for taking the decision for terminating the letter of intent. However, in the counter affidavit some reasons have been cited by the respondents which led to their satisfaction for taking such a decision. The respondents have stated in their counter affidavit that an enquiry was conducted earlier by the respondents with regard to mal-practice committed by the sister company of the petitioner in an earlier contract with the respondent for the period 1989-90 wherein the sister company of the petitioner was found to have made false claims on account of insurance to the tune of Rs.15 lacs. According, to the respondents, the petitioner also did not have the prescribed experience when it submitted its bid for the contract work. All the aforesaid statements, which are the foundation for arriving at the impugned decision and action against the petitioner, on the face of it, are adverse to the petitioner. In the light of the aforesaid statements brought against the petitioner, which according to the respondents, as stated in their counter affidavit, are the foundations and reasons for cancelling the telex message/Letter of Intent, we feel that the petitioner deserved an opportunity to show cause against the said statements and explain its position in accordance with the principles of natural justice before a decision is taken by the respondents to cancel the Letter of Intent.

(7) Being aware of the aforesaid legal and factual position, Mr. Sen appearing for the respondents fairly submitted before us that the respondents would withdraw the impugned order dated 25.4.1995 and issue a show cause notice to the petitioner in respect of the adverse allegations against it and thereafter would take a final decision in the matter in accordance with law. We find the submission of Mr. Sen to be fair and reasonable.

(8) In view of the aforesaid submissions there appears to be no further cause of action to proceed and continue with this petition. This writ petition is accordingly, disposed of with a direction to the respondents to withdraw the impugned order within two weeks from today in the light of the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents. This will however, not bar the respondents from taking any action against the petitioner in accordance with law, if so permissible. No costs.