Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
A.V.SESHA SAI, J.
The Andhra Petrochemicals Limited - Petitioner
Vs.
The Visakhapatnam Port Trust - Respondent
WRIT PETITION No.16057 OF 2020
Decided On : 25-02-2022
Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 226 and 300A – Writ Petition - Equality before Law – Power of High court to issue writ - Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, calls in question tender cancellation order and fresh tender notification issued by respondent No.2 and petitioners herein are consequently praying for a direction to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to execute lease deed annexed to tender notice in favour of petitioner No.1 - Whether respondents are justified in cancelling tender notification and issuing a fresh tender notification.
Finding of the Court:
It is very much evident from principles laid down in aforementioned judgments that actions of authorities created under statutes should always be transparent and free from all infirmities and unreasonableness and such authorities should necessarily stand as a model to society - Absence of such a sacred conduct even in contractual matters cannot be approved - In factual and circumstantial situation of case, when issue on hand is tested on touchstone of Article 14 of Constitution of India, this Court necessarily is required to arrive at an irresistible conclusion that questioned action is patently arbitrary and highly unreasonable and it also offends Article 19(1)(g) of Constitution of India - Respondent-Port Trust Authorities have also given a goby to mandatory requirements, as stipulated in Clauses 13 and 20(vi) of Land Policy Guidelines for Major Ports, 2014, which received approval of Union Cabinet - No evidence is forthcoming as to compliance of above said clauses of Land Policy Guidelines for Major Ports, 2014 and there is no material placed on record by respondent-Port Trust Authorities which shows that they invited objections and suggestions from stakeholders before change of land use from industrial to commercial - It is also stated in reply that M/s. Aluflouride Ltd., which is a commercial industry like, petitioner No.1 herein and which does not use Port facilities but consumes raw-material from M/s. Coromandel, which uses Port facilities, has been granted renewal, vide letter under industrial category - Contention of learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 with regard to maintainability of Writ Petition under Article 226 of Constitution, in considered opinion of this Court, is also not sustainable in view of aforementioned finding recorded by this Court that impugned action is patently arbitrary and infringes Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of Constitution of India - In these circumstances and having regard to facts and circumstances of case, this Court has to necessarily come to a conclusion that impugned action cannot be sustained in eye of law.
Result: Writ Petition is allowed.
ORDER :
This Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, calls in question the tender cancellation order dated 18.08.2020 and the fresh tender notification dated 24.08.2020 issued by respondent No.2 and the petitioners herein are consequently praying for a direction to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to execute the lease deed annexed to tender notice dated 07.08.2019 in favour of petitioner No.1. According to the petitioners, petitioner No.1 is a Company, incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, and is engaged in business of manufacture and production of OXO-ALCOHOLS and petitioner No.2 is its shareholder. Petitioner No.1 and respondent No.1-Visakhapatnam Port Trust entered into a long term lease deed for a period of 30 years on 27.06.1989 for setting up Petro Chemical Industry and petitioner No.1 herein established the said industry. In view of the expiry of period of lease and as per the Land Policy Guidelines for Major Ports, 2014, the respondent-Visakhapatnam Port Trust issued e-procurement notice dated 07.08.2019, inviting tenders for allotment of Ex-Andhra Petro Chemical Limited land including plant and machinery on long term lease of 30 years without renewal option on “as is where is basis” in Zone-Z4 for industrial purpose. In response to the said tender notification, petitioner No.1 herein submitted tender and emerged successful in technical and financial bids. Subsequently, as there was no response from the respondent-Visakhapatnam Port Trust authorities, petitioner No.1 herein addressed a letter dated 25.07.2020 to the Hon’ble Minister, Ministry of Shipping, Government of India, complaining about the non-execution of the lease deed. Vide letter dated 18.08.2020, respondent No.2 herein cancelled the tender notification dated 07.08.2019 and also issued a fresh tender notification dated 24.08.2020. In the above background, challenging the validity and the legal sustainability of the cancellation order and the fresh tender notification issued by respondent No.2, the present Writ Petition came to be instituted.
2. This Court, while ordering notice before admission on 15.09.2020, in I.A.No.2020, granted interim stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the tender notification dated 24.08.2020. Now a petition vide I.A.No.1 of 2021 is filed, seeking to vacate the said interim order. Though the matter is at the stage of admission, with the consent of the learned counsel for the writ petitioners and the respondents and as the pleadings are also complete, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of this Writ Petition.
3. Heard Sri B.Adinarayana Rao, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri Challa Gunaranjan, learned counsel for the writ petitioners, Sri P.Raviteja, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri N.Harinath, learned Assistant Solicitor General for the Union of India for respondent No.3, apart from perusing the material available on record.
4. Submissions/contentions of Sri B.Adinarayana Rao, learned Senior Counsel:-
(2) The action of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in cancelling the first tender and re-issuance of the fresh tender notification, indicating different land use, without assigning any reasons runs counter to the Land Use Plan and the Land Policy Guidelines for Major Ports, 2014.
(3) The acceptance of technical and financial bids has created a vested right in the petitioners and the same cannot be taken away unilaterally in an arbitrary manner.
(4) The acceptance of financial bid has given rise to legitimate expectation to the petitioners and the same is sought to be frustrated by the respondents by way of the impugned action.
(5) The order of can
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
