SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1993 Supreme(SC) 1247

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
WITH
Bhillai Engineering Corpn. and others - Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and others - Respondents
WITH
Anup Malleables - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others - Respondents
WITH
Burn Standard Co. - Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and others - Respondents
WITH
Texmaco - Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and others - Respondents
WITH
Cimmco - Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and others - Respondents
AND
Titagarh Steels - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others – Respondents
S.L.P. (Civil) Nos. 11897 of 1992 with 13010-11, 12696-97, 13018-19, 13253-54, 13255-56 and 13409-10 of 1992
Decided On : 15-04-1993

Headnote:

Excluding bulk of evidence - Contracts with the manufacturers for the supply – Circumstances evidence - Every year the Railway Board enters into contracts with manufacturers for supply of cast steel bogies which are used in turn for building the wagons. Cast steel bogies come under a specialized item procured by the Railways from established sources of proven ability - There are suppliers in the field who have been regularly supplying these items - Two new firms Simplex and also entered field - Among them admittedly are bigger manufacturers having capacity to manufacture larger quantities limited tender notice for procurement of cast steel bogies was issued to the regular suppliers as well as the above two new entrants for year namely - Last date for submission of offers to the Ministry of Railways – Held, learned counsel however contended that allotment of quantities to smaller manufacturers also is not based on any acceptable principle and that some of them are given larger quantities without any justification rendering the decision bad because of arbitrariness - Proceedings mentioned above particularly in of the Financial Commissioner as well as the competent authority would show that some of smaller manufacturers namely and BIFR companies. As no price preferential treatment was given to anyone of them approving authority considered that enhancement in allocation of quantities was necessary. Likewise and who are wagon builders and whose business is entirely with Railways were also given some weight age – Court cannot say that these are considerations for the purpose of arriving at a decision - In past also there were such variations based on these circumstances. In any event for different reasons we have varied this decision and directed that three big manufacturers should be given allotment as per the recommendations of the Tender Committee. In our earlier order we have noticed that there has been some departure in respect of one or two smaller manufacturers in allotting the quantities – Court have already indicated that Railways authorities should in future make a proper consideration of the relevant factors in respect of each in an objective manner in allotting quantities - Now coming to the question of dual pricing, the submission is that in respect of same set of manufacturers, some of them cannot be made to supply at a lower price and the others namely smaller manufacturers cannot be given advantage to supply at a higher price and such dual pricing is unreasonable and arbitrary. As already noted, the Tender Committee worked out an upgraded price and taking into other relevant factors like cost of the material etc. into consideration and applying the formula as was being done in the past and particularly taking into consideration the two concessions in respect of custom and freight fixed Rs reasonable price - This was very close to the price quoted by the three big manufacturers - But at a post-tender stage, they entered into correspondence offering a lower price and ultimately the three big manufacturers committed themselves to supply at rate bogie - In our earlier order we indicated that these big manufacturers formed a different category namely that they may be in a position to supply at that rate as is evident from their own commitment but to apply the same price which is much lower than reasonable and workable price fixed by Tender Committee to other smaller manufacturers would again result in ending competition between big and the small which ultimately would result in monopoly of market by the three big manufacturers - Order accordingly

JUDGMENT :

K. Jayachandra Reddy, J.

1. By our order dated 14th January, 1993 (reported in AIR 1994 Supreme Court 980) while disposing of these special leave petitions we gave our conclusions and we proposed to deliver the detailed judgment at a later stage giving all the reasons in support of those conclusions. We hereby deliver the detailed judgment.

2. In our earlier order we stated the relevant facts and the issues involved in a concised form. However, we think it appropriate and necessary to refer to some of them for a better appreciation of the reasons in their proper perspective.

3. 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 27-1 1-91 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 customs 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 recommend actions on 4-2-92 but on the same day the Member (Mechanical) of the Committee received letters from M/s. H.D.C. and Mukand. M/s. H.D.C. in its letter stated that in view of the concessions and also on the basis that per kg. rate of casting per bogie could be reduced from Rs. 37.50 to Rs. 29/- the cost of casting can also be reduced and therefore they would be in a position to supply the bogies at a lesser rate, in case a negotiation meeting is called. M/s. Mukand in its letter also offered to substantially reduce the prices and they would like to co-operate with the Railways and the Government and bring down the prices as low as possible and asked for ne

                                                                Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                                                                1
                                                                2
                                                                3
                                                                4
                                                                5
                                                                6
                                                                7
                                                                8
                                                                9
                                                                10
                                                                11
                                                                SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                                                                supreme today icon
                                                                logo-black

                                                                An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

                                                                Please visit our Training & Support
                                                                Center or Contact Us for assistance

                                                                qr

                                                                Scan Me!

                                                                India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                                                                For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                                                                whatsapp-icon Back to top