Telangana High Court
Sri Avantika Contractors P Limiteds P. ... vs The Union Of India on 16 May, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
WRIT PETITION No.13357 OF 2024
ORDER:
Heard Sri K.V.Bhanu Prasad, learned Senior Counsel
appears for Sri V.S.R. Avadhani, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri V.T. Kalyan, learned counsel appears for Sri
Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of
India for the respondent.
2. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioner
submitted his bid for sale of coal in Sattupalli Block-III Coal
mine. Pursuant to bid, an agreement dated 08.01.2024 was
entered into. As per the tender notification, data of block was
prepared by reputed Government company i.e., SCCL and is
verified and confirmed by another Government agency i.e.,
CMPDIL. The petitioner bona fidely acted upon the data and
paid Rs.12.33 crore towards cost of the said data. The
petitioner never thought that the said companies can provide
incorrect or misleading data by suppression of material facts.
In order to bolster this, learned Senior Counsel submits that
the last report prepared by the said companies relates to the
year 2004. Considering the aforesaid, the petitioner preferred
a representation. A meeting was held on 18.03.2024,
consisting the officers of Ministry of Coal, SCCL, CMPDIL and
petitioner's company. The grievance of the petitioner was
reduced into writing in the minutes of meeting and thereafter,
the petitioner preferred two representations dated 18.04.2024
and 22.04.2024. The respondents, without considering the
said representations, passed the impugned order dated
08.05.2024 and directed the petitioner to submit Performance
Bank Guarantee till May, 2024.
3. The argument of learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner firstly is that the representations of the petitioner
dated 18.04.2024 and 22.04.2024 although were referred in
the impugned order dated 08.05.2024, there is no discussion
regarding the said representations in the body of the entire
order. In other words, the respondents have failed to assign
any reason in relation to the said representations dated
18.04.2024 and 22.04.2024. Therefore, the impugned order
dated 08.05.2024 be set aside and the respondents be
directed to pass a fresh order by taking into account the said
two representations. Secondly it is argued that the site and
data in relation to land in question is of old origin i.e., 2004
and therefore, the respondents are bound to provide recent
data.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the
impugned order and submits that the order dated 08.05.2024
is passed after considering the said two representations. No
other point is pressed by both the parties.
5. I heard the parties at length on admission as well as
interim relief. The relevant para of impugned order dated
08.05.2024 reads as under:
"2. In this regarding following is informed:
a. Bidder must do due diligence before submission of bid
for a coal block. There is provision of physical inspection
of the block/mine by the prospective bidders prior to
submitting bid. The relevant clause (Point 3.6.1) of the
Standard Tender Document is given below:
"Prior to submission of Technical Bid, the
Bidders are encouraged to undertake the site
visit to Coal Mine, at their own cost and risk and
ascertain for themselves the site conditions,
location, communication, climate, availability of
power. Applicable Laws and regulations, and any
other matter considered relevant by them in the
manner provided herein."
b. On request of M/s SACIL a meeting was conducted
under Additional Secretary (MoC) & Nominated Authority
on 18.03.2024 to address the issues raised and it was
observed that these issues should have been addressed
during the pre-bid meeting itself. The bidder was advised
to initiate actions for the development of the coal block as
per the prescribed milestones.
c. Responsibility of development of coal block as a
separate block lies with M/s SACIL and allocation order
for coal block is awaited as extension has been sought by
M/s SACIL. However, M/s SCCL was asked to extend all
support to M/s SACIL for development of coal block
during meeting held on 18.03.2024.
d. As per SOP, two extensions has already been granted
to M/s SACIL for furnishing Performance Bank
Guarantee till May 15, 2024."
(Emphasis Supplied)
6. A plain reading of the impugned order shows that the
respondents have reproduced Clause 3.6.1 of Standard
Tender Document and opined that a bidder should have
exercised due diligence before submission of bid of coal block.
Having failed to do so, after signing the agreement at this
stage, this prayer cannot be accepted. Pertinently, no amount
of argument is advanced to wriggle out of this finding in the
impugned order, which is founded upon Clause 3.6.1 of
Standard Tender Document.
7. Apart from this, the respondents have placed reliance
on Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), pursuant to which
two extensions were permitted to petitioner for furnishing
Performance Bank Guarantee. No attack was forthcoming on
this aspects during the arguments.
8. So far as the petitioner's prayer for deciding his
representations dated 18.04.2024 and 22.04.2024 is
concerned, it is apt to mention that in order to obtain a Writ
or Order for this purpose in the nature of Mandamus, the
petitioner has to satisfy that he has a legal right to the
performance of a legal duty by a party against whom Writ is
sought for and such right must be a subsisting right on the
date of the petition. The duty that may be enjoined by
Mandamus must be one imposed by the Constitution, a
statute, common law or by rules or orders having force of law
(See Director of Settlements, A.P. Vs. M.R. Apparao 1,
Municipal Corpn. of Greater Mumbai Vs. Rafiqunnisa M.
Khalifa 2 and a Division Bench judgment of Madhya Pradesh
High Court in Indore Development Authority Vs. Sansar
Publication Pvt. Ltd. 3).
9. In the instant case, there was no statutory provision of
preferring representations dated 18.04.2024 and 22.04.2024.
There was no statutory obligation for the respondents to
decide the said representations. Yet, the said representations
have been decided in the light of relevant clause of Standard
Tender Document. It could not be pointed out that clause
3.6.1 of Standard Tender Document cannot form basis of
impugned order. The petitioner did not exercise 'due
diligence' before submission of bid for a coal block.
1 (2002) 4 SCC 638
2 (2019) 5 SCC 119
3 2019 SCC OnLine MP 418
10. It is settled law that in contractual matters, the scope of
interference of this Court in Writ jurisdiction is very limited.
The impugned order is passed by the competent authority
which took a plausible view based on the relevant clause of
Standard Tender Document. There is no ingredient on which
interference can be made and interim relief can be granted.
11. Therefore, admission is declined and the Writ Petition is
dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________
SUJOY PAUL, J
Date: 16.05.2024
TJMR
