SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY AND G. N. RAY, JJ.
Union of India and others, Petitioners
Versus
Hindustan Development Corpn. and others, Respondents.
S.L.P. (Civil) Nos. 11897-98, 13010-11, 12696-97, 13018-19, 13253-54, 13253-54, 13255-56 and 13409-10 0f 1992, D/- 14-1-1993.
WITH
Bhillai Engineering Corpn. and others, Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and others, Respondents.
AND
Anup Malleables, Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and others, Respondents.
AND
Burn Standard Co., Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and others, Respondents.
AND
Texmaco, Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and others, Respondents.
AND
Cimmco, Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and others, Respondents.
AND
Tatagarh Steels, Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and others, Respondents.
Civil Writ Petn. Nos. 1152 and 1157 of 1992, D/- 28-8-1992 (Delhi), Reversed. (Para 7)
Mr. V. R. Reddy, Add. Solicitor General, Mr. Kapil Sibbal, Mr. P. P. Rao, Mr. Rama Jois, Mr. A. Temton, Dr. Shankar Ghosh, Mr. K. K. Venugopal, Mr. Harish Salve, Mr. F. S. Nariman, Mr. A. N. Haksar, Mr. Shanti Bhushan, Mr. K. N. Bhat and Mr. T. R. Adhuarujina, Sr. Advocates, Mr. C. V. Subha Rao, Mr. P. P. Singh, Mrs. B. Sunita Rao, Mr. Sudhir Kulshreshtra, Mr. Rohit Tandon, Mr. Parajat Sinha, Ms. Sunanda Roy, Ms. S. Bhattcharya, Mr. B. D. Ahmed, Mr. Man Mohan Singh, Mr. Gopal Subramanium, Mr. D. N. Mishra, Mr. A. M. Dittia, Mr. P. K. Ganguli, Mr. Majoj K. Das, Mr. Amit Prabhat, Mr. Tripurary Roy, Mr. K. L. Mehta, Mr. S. Ganesh, Mr. Pratap Venugopal, Mr. K. J. John, Mr. Pramod Dayal, Mr. Ajay K. Jain and Mr. D. N. Manjunda Reddy, Advocates with them for the appearing parties.
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 14 - Contracts - Tender notice - Supply of cast steel bogies - Contracts with Railways entered into by manufacturers who are parties, have to be completed very soon judgment in these matters has to be delivered as early as possible or at least conclusions have to be given soon – Court are conscious of fact that it is likely to take considerable time to deliver a detailed judgment - However, having gone through records carefully and after due consideration of various arguments advanced, Court have reached conclusions given hereunder and we propose to deliver detailed judgment at a later stage giving all the reasons in support of these conclusions - Cast steel bogies come under a specialised item procured by Railways from established sources of proven ability - There are 12 suppliers in the field who have been regularly supplying these items - Two new firms Simplex and Beekay also entered field - Among them admittedly M/s. H.D.C., Mukand and Bharatiya are bigger manufacturers having capacity to manufacture larger quantities - Held, In view of Court finding that formation of an opinion that a cartel was formed had no firm factual foundation: such a reduction of quota by way of reprisal can not be justified – Court are however, not inclined to accept contention made on behalf of M/s. H.D.C., Mukand and Bharatiya that no departure from recommendations of Tender Committee is permissible in absence of any established policy which was also known by tenderers - It appears to Court that all smaller manufacturers deserving a favourable treatment in matter of allotment of quota have not been equally treated in sense that one or two of them got larger quantities - Though this does not appear to be a serious departure, yet in these matters Govt. is expected to be just and fair to one and all – Court hope that in future authorities would make a proper consideration of relevant factors in respect of each tenderer in an Objective manner in alloting quantities - Court however do not want to disturb at this stage quantities finally allotted by competent authority to small manufacturers as that would cause great hardship to them – Court leave it to Railway authorities to make necessary adjustments next year in matter of allocation of quantities to them taking into consideration these allotments given to them this year - To that extent we modify order of High Court - Accordingly these Special Leave Petitions are disposed of - There will be no order as to costs - Order accordingly.
Judgment
JAYACHANDRA REDDY, J.:- All these Special Leave Petitions arise out of the common judgment of the High Court of Delhi in Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 1152 and 982 1157/92. We heard these matters for considerable length of time. Eminent counsel appearing on both sides advanced detailed arguments. After the conclusion of the hearing it was represented that having regard to the constraint of time factor, namely that the contracts with the Railways entered into by the manufacturers who are parties, have to be completed very soon the judgment in these matters has to be delivered as early as possible or at least the conclusions have to be given soon. We are conscious of the fact that it is likely to take considerable time to deliver a detailed judgment. However, having gone through the records carefully and after due consideration of the various arguments advanced, we have reached the conclusions given hereunder and we propose to deliver the detailed judgment at a later stage giving all the reasons in support of these conclusions. We, however, think it necessary to state a few relevant facts and the issues involved in a concised form before we set out our conclusions.
2. Every year the Railway Board enters into contracts with the manufacturers for the supply of cast steel bogies which are used in turn for building the wagons. Cast steel bogies come under a specialised item procured by the Railways from the established sources of proven ability. There are 12 suppliers in the field who have been regularly supplying these items. Two new firms Simplex and Beekay also entered the field. Among them admittedly M/s. H.D.C., Mukand and Bharatiya are bigger manufacturers having capacity to manufacture larger quantities. On 25-10-91 a limited Tender notice for procurement of 19000 cast steel bogies was issued to the regular suppliers as well as the above two new entrants for the year namely from 1-4-92 to 31-3-93. The last date for submission of offers to the Ministry of Railways was 27-11-91 by 2-30 p.m. and the tenders were to be opened on the same day at 3 p.m. It was also stated therein that the price was subject to the price variation clause and the base date for the purpose of escalation was 1-9-91 and that the Railways reserved the right to order additional quantity up to 30 of the ordered quantity during the currency of the contract on the same price and terms and conditions with suitable extensions in delivery period. The offers were to remain open for a period of 90 days. On that day the tenders were opened in the presence of all parties. The price quoted by the three manufacturers i.e. M/s. H.D.C., Mukand and Bharatiya was an identical price of Rs. 77,666/- per bogie while other tenderers quoted between 83,000/- and 84,500/- per bogie. After the tenders were opened and before the same could be finalised, the Government of India announced two major concessions namely reduction of custom duty on the import of steel scrap and dispensation of freight equalisation fund for steel. The tenders were put up and placed before the Tender Committee of the Railways which considered all the aspects. The Committee concluded that three of the tenderers namely M/s H.D.C., Mukand and Bharatiya who had quoted identical rates without any cushion for escalation between 1-7-91 and 1-9-91, have apparently formed a cartel. The Tender Committee also noted that the rates quoted by them were the lowest. Taking into consideration the reduction of Rs. 1500/- as a result of the concessions in respect of the reduction of custody duty on the import of steel scrap and dispensation of the freight equalisation fund for steel, the Tender Committee concluded that the reasonable rate would be Rs. 76,000/- per bogie. On the question of distribution of quantities to the various manufacturers the Tender Committee decided to follow the existing procedure. The Tender Committee signed these recommendations on 4-2-92 but on the same day the Member (Mechanical) of the Comm
relied on : Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Ltd. v. State of W.B.
Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India
Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of JandK
State of U.P. v. Vijay Bahadur Singh
State of Orissa v. Harinarayan Jaiswal
Union of India v. Bhimsen Walaiti Ram
G.B. Mahajan v. Jalgaon Municipal council
State of M.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal
Indian Cement Ltd. v. Union of India
Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Union of India
Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. v. Reserve Bank of India
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
Food Corpn. of India v. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries
Navjyoti Cooperative Group Housing Society v. Union of India
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.