Delhi High Court
Vinod Kumar Batra vs The Uoi on 4 December, 2008
Author: Mukul Mudgal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
9.
+ W.P.(C) 1689/2007 &C.M. No.11195/2008
% DATE OF DECISION:4th December, 2008
VINOD KUMAR BATRA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. C. Hari Shankar, Mr. S. Sunil and
Mr. C.M. Jayahamen, Advocates.
versus
THE UOI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Satish Aggarwala, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Shirish Aggarwal, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKUL MUDGAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?
JUDGMENT
MUKUL MUDGAL, J: (ORAL)
1. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final
hearing.
2 This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arises
from E-Auction of the plant power loom components by the Commissioner
of Customs pursuant to a public notice dated 24th January, 2007. The said E-
Auction commenced on 16th February, 2007 and it was closed on 21st
February, 2007.
3. The main submission of the Petitioner counsel is that while it is
admitted that the Petitioner had submitted an auto bid for Rs. 22,32,000/- to
Rs. 22,51,000/- and was thus a higher bidder than the Respondent No. 2,
who had only given a bid of Rs. 22,42,000/-, yet the Petitioner was wrongly
denied the auctioned lot as a successful bidder.
4. Mr. C. Hari Shankar, learned counsel for the Petitioner has placed
considerable stress on the Explanatory Note given to the public notice No.
1/2007 dated 24th January, 2007. The said Explanatory Note reads as
under:-
"EXPLANATORY NOTES:-
1. During trial run it has been observed that
bidders may face some technical problems while
bidding during the last minutes of e-auction. It
has already been to the notice of bidders that
bidding during the last minutes of e-auction may
encounter certain unforeseen problems such as
time-lag, heavy traffic, system/power failure at the
user end etc. In order to avoid such problems and
also not to lose out bidding, the bidders keen on
buying any particular lot, are advised not to
postpone the bidding to the last moment and to
opt for e-tender and auto-bid options. These
options are provide to overcome such technical
difficulties. In the e-tender the bidders can quote
the minimum price they are willing to pay for a
particular lot. In the auto-bid option they can
quote the maximum price they are willing to pay
along with the incremental value which can be
quoted as low as Rs. 100/-. These options will
provide enough flexibility so that they need not sit
before the computer throughout the e-auction
process and need not worry about the technical
problems."
5. According to Petitioner's counsel, the said note itself provides that the
option of public bidding was provided to overcome technical difficulties
owing to last minute bidding. He, therefore, submitted that his bid ought to
have been preferred to the bid of Respondent No. 2 and the Respondent No.
2's allocation ought to have been cancelled.
6. A perusal of the said Explanatory Note itself shows that a new system
was being adopted by the Customs Department and it had been observed that
the bidders may face some technical problem while bidding during the last
minutes of E-Auction. In order to avoid such problems, the bidders were
advised not to postpone the bidding to the last moment and to opt for E-
tender and auto-bid options. No doubt, the plea raised by Mr. C. Hari
Shankar is a plausible view. However, taking into account the fact that a
new system was being tried out and the bidders had been advised to bid in
time to avoid the last minute technical difficulties and the Petitioner's e-bid
was submitted in the closing minutes, we are satisfied that no cause for
interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out. In
coming to this conclusion, we are also aided by the fact that manual bid
submitted by the Petitioner was for the sum of Rs. 22,31,000/-, lower than
the accepted bid of Rs. 22,42,000/-.
7. Consequently, we find no merit in this writ petition and the writ
petition along with pending application stand dismissed.
MUKUL MUDGAL, J
MANMOHAN, J
DECEMBER 04, 2008/sb
