Telangana High Court
WP/39429/2012 of Ghan Shyam Metal Udyog / 12123 Vs The Chief Engineer, on 28 December 2012
R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.39429 OF 2012 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed questioning the order, dated 24.09.2012, passed in Ref: MSTC (V)/APTRANSCO-VIJAYAWADA ZONE/12-13/EA-4071, by which respondent No. 3 – Company has cancelled the Sale Order issued to the petitioner for sale
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.39429 OF 2012
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed questioning the order, dated24.09.2012, passed in Ref: MSTC (V)/APTRANSCO-VIJAYAWADAZONE/12-13/EA-4071, by which respondent No. 3 – Company hascancelled the Sale Order issued to the petitioner for sale of scrap.
Respondent No.3, which is a Government of India enterpriseand an authorised Company for sale of scrap of Andhra PradeshTransmission Corporation Limited (APTCL), has notified for sale ofscrap in various locations. The petitioner is the highest bidder, whichhas offered its bid by paying EMD of Rs.5,00,000/-, for sale of 47.1964MT of scrap at Nellore and secured Acceptance Letter/Sale Order,which is a computer generated copy. Thereafter, the impugned orderwas passed by respondent No.3, cancelling the Sale Order issued tothe petitioner, by referring to cancellation order passed by respondentNo.1.
In this Writ Petition, it is the grievance of the petitioner thatinasmuch as Acceptance Letter/Sale Order is already issued for saleof scrap, which is already notified, it is not open for the respondents tocancel the same.
When the matter was listed on earlier occasion, it wasadjourned to enable the learned Standing Counsel appearing forAPTCL to obtain instructions. On instructions, it is submitted by thelearned Standing Counsel that iron scrap accumulated at variouslocations was notified by common e-auction notice; that the petitioneroffered bid at the rate of Rs.72,350/- per MT, whereas on the sameday, similar scrap was sold for an amount of Rs.81,569/- inVijayawada; and in view of huge difference in price, respondent No.1ordered to cancel the Acceptance Letter, which is a computer generated copy, issued to the petitioner. It is further submitted that asthe tender conditions empower for cancellation of Sale Order byrespondent No.3 at any point of time even after acceptance, in view ofthe huge difference in price in two locations referred to above on thesame day, the impugned order was passed. He has also produced theconditions of e-tender notice.
Clause 13 (q) of the tender conditions reads as under:
“MSTC/Seller reserves the right toaccept/reject any offer/bid, withdraw from sale, thematerials offered for sale in full or part thereof prior toor after the acceptance of the bid without specifyingany reason thereof.”
It is to be noticed that when the petitioner has offered its bid asper the tender conditions, it is bound by the conditions of the bid. Asthe tender conditions empower cancellation of bid at any point of timeeven after acceptance, it is always open to the respondents to cancelthe same. In that view of the matter, I do not find any illegality in theimpugned order, which is passed in confirmation with the tenderconditions.
Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed.Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall standclosed. No costs.
December 28, 2012MD
________________________
R. SUBHASH REDDY, J
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY
MD
WRIT PETITION No.39429 OF 2012
December 28, 2012