Madras High Court
S.S.K. Iron And Steels Pvt. Ltd vs Union Of India on 22 September, 2021
W.P.No.17446 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22.09.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No.17446 of 2015 and
M.P.No.1 of 2015
S.S.K. Iron and Steels Pvt. Ltd,
Rep. by its Director S.Santhanakrishnan,
153-Part, T.H.Road,
Tondiarpet, Chennai-600 081. ... Petitioner
Vs
1.Union of India
Owning Southern Railway
Rep. by its Regional Manager,
Chennai-600 003.
2.The Deputy Chief Materials Manager,
General Stores Depot, Perambur,
Chennai-600 023. ...Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified Mandamus calling for
the records from the 2nd respondent pertaining to his proceedings in
No.00/12/RM Sales/14-15/200014091243, quash the order dated
28.10.2014 and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to refund the EMD
amount of Rs.3,82,973/- together with interest @ 18% from 11.09.2014 to
till the date of payment.
For Petitioner : No appearance
For Respondents : Mr.P.T.Ramkumar
Standing Counsel for Railways
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.17446 of 2015
ORDER
The order dated 28.10.2014 forfeiting the EMD amount is sought to
be quashed in the present writ petition and a direction is sought to refund
the EMD amount of Rs.3,82,973/- along with the interest.
2. The petitioner is a Private Limited Company and dealing with the
business of iron and steel scrap. The second respondent conducted an
e-auction in respect of certain steel scrap material and published the said
auction. The petitioner company decided to bid for the materials mentioned
in Serial No.A2 in lot No.200014091244 stored at Sulurpet. The auction
took place on 11.09.2014. The petitioner intended to quote a sum of
Rs.24,945/- for the said lot. However, while typing the bid amount, it was
wrongly typed as Rs.34,945/-. Since the e-auctions concluded at a high
speed making such typographical mistakes were common. Immediately, the
petitioner wrote a letter to the second respondent on 11.09.2014 informing
him about the mistake and requested the second respondent to cancel the bid
offered by the writ petitioner and to refund the EMD. However, the second
respondent, by order dated 11.09.2014 (on the same day), accepted the bid
of the petitioner fixing the sale value at Rs.38,29,727/-. After deducting the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.17446 of 2015
EMD amount, the petitioner was directed to pay the balance of
Rs.36,78,452.48 paise.
3. The petitioner submitted a representation in this regard elaborating
the mistake committed by them and further informing the Railways that the
said mistake was informed to the authorities competent on the same day
immediately on 11.09.2014. Without even considering the said information,
on the very same day, they have accepted the bid. Under these
circumstances, the petitioner is constrained to move the present writ
petition.
4. The petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Mohammed Gazi Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2000
(4) SCC 1806 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:
"The other maxim is, lex non cogit ad impossibilia - the law
does not compel a man to do which he cannot possibly
perform. The law itself and its administration is understood to
disclaim as it does in its general aphorisms, all intention of
compelling impossibilities, and the administration of law must
adopt that general exception in the consideration of particular
cases. The applicability of the aforesaid maxims has been
approved by this Court in Raj Kumar Dey & Ors.vs. Tarapada
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.17446 of 2015
Dey & Ors.[1987 (4) SCC 398] and Gursharan Singh & Ors
vs. NDMC & Ors. [1996 (2) SCC 459].
5. It is contended that the impugned order is directly in violation of
the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case
of Registrar, Indian Institute of Technology Vs. Hameed Enterprises
reported in 2015 (1) CTC 696 (DB), wherein, in paragraph 15, the Division
Bench has observed as follows:
"15. The action of the appellant in accepting the bid amount of
the writ petitioner was also not proper. When the figure quoted
was astronomical and certainly much more than the value of
the scraps comparing with the amount quoted by other
bidders, the appellant ought to have examined the fact as to
whether it was a mistake or genuine. In such a situation, the
appellant ought not to have acted in haste in accepting the
offer and conveying immediately in the late night to the writ
petitioner requiring him to deposit the security money. In this
background, it can safely be held that there was a
typographical mistake in the amount quoted by the writ
petitioner. Thus, both parties were at fault. What is good for
the goose is good for the gander. In that event, the appellant
cannot be permitted to take advantage of technicality. Thus,
the direction to refund the EMD amount was rational and
proper."
6. In view of the fact that the narration of facts are not disputed by the
parties, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Division Bench is applied in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.17446 of 2015
present case. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the second
respondent in Proceeding No.00/12/RM Sales/14-15/200014091243 dated
28.10.2014 is quashed and the second respondent is directed to refund the
EMD amount along with interest at the rate of 5% per annum within a
period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands allowed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
22.09.2021
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes/No
Sgl
To
1.The Regional Manager,
Union of India
Owning Southern Railway
Chennai-600 003.
2.The Deputy Chief Materials Manager,
General Stores Depot, Perambur,
Chennai-600 023.
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Sgl
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.17446 of 2015
W.P.No.17446 of 2015
22.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
