2024 Supreme(Cal) 240
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
T. S. Sivagnanam, Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, JJ.
Central Public Works Department & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
SRMB Srijan Private Limited & Ors. – Respondents
MAT 300, 310 of 2024 With IA No. CAN 1 of 2024 CAN 2 of 2024
Decided On : 15-04-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Atarup Banerjee, Ms. Sarda Sha, Mr. Rajdeep Pramanick, Ms. Anuska Bose
For the Respondent: Mr. Sakya Sen, Mr. Arnab Das, Mr. A. Chowdhury, Mr. Subhajit Nath
IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the need for the CPWD to align its Work Manual with the Ministry of Steel notifications on steel procurement.
Headnote:
Delay Condonation - Government Policy on Steel Procurement - Notification dated 12th December, 2013, 24th April, 2015, 12th May, 2016, 9th August, 2016, 14th December, 2016, 7th February, 2017 - The court condoned the delay in filing the appeal and directed the CPWD to amend their Work Manual to be in consonance with the Ministry of Steel notifications.
Fact of the Case:
The appeals were filed by the Central Public Works Department and Union of India against the order quashing Clause 27.2 of the CPWD Works Manual 2014, which was found inconsistent with the Ministry of Steel's policy on steel procurement.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the appeals, condoned the delay, and directed the CPWD to amend their Work Manual to align with the Ministry of Steel notifications.
Issues: Inconsistency of CPWD Works Manual with Ministry of Steel notifications, delay in filing the appeals.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the CPWD Works Manual was not in tune with the Ministry of Steel notifications and directed the CPWD to amend it accordingly.
Final Decision: The appeals and connected applications were dismissed, and the CPWD was directed to amend their Work Manual within 12 weeks.
JUDGMENT :
1. There is a delay of 284 days in filing these appeals. We have perused the averments made in the respective applications for condonation of delay. After being satisfied with the averments made in the applications for condonation for delay, we condone the delay in filing the appeal. CAN 1 of 2024 filed in connection with MAT 300 of 2024 and CAN 2 of 2024 filed in connection with MAT 310 of 2024 are, accordingly, allowed.
2. These appeals have been filed by the Central Public Works Department as well as Union of India, both being aggrieved by the order passed in WPA No.9990 of 2020 with WPA 24267 of 2019 respectively filed by the first respondent herein. The learned Single Bench has allowed the writ petitions and held that the modified Clause 27.2 of the CPWD Works Manual of 2014 reincorporated in the CPWD Works Manual of 2019 is being inconsistent with the policy framed by the Government of India, Ministry of Steel is liable to be struck over.
3. We have elaborately heard the learned advocates for the parties.
4. In paragraph 51 of the impugned order the learned Single Bench has rightly noted the legal position that the purchaser has a discretion in selecting the quality of steel. Nonetheless, the writ petitions have been allowed and offending clause 27.2 in the office memorandum issued by the CPWD dated 16th February, 2019 was set aside, more particularly, with regard to Clause 2(d) contained in the modified provisions. The Ministry of Steel, Government of India had issued notifications from time to time with regard to classification of steel plants/producers. The earliest of the notifications, which has been placed before us, is the notification dated 12th December, 2013 where the Government of India noted that the steel plants were classified differently in trade and commerce on the basis of vintage, process route, size, level of integration etc and a number of steel producers have been approaching the Ministry of Steel for classifying them as “Integrated Steel Plants” or “Primary Steel Producers” and this was prompted by user industries’ preference for Integrated Steel Plants or Primary Steel Plants for steel procurement presumably on the ground that only such producers are capable of supplying quality steel in the right quantity. In order to resolve this issue, the Government of India, Ministry of Steel by a notification dated 12th December, 2013 has decided to classify and certify steel producers in the private as well as public domain under two categories, namely (i) on the basis of process route/technology and (ii) on the basis of size/capacity. By notification dated 24th April, 2015 the Ministry of Steel, Government of India superseded the notification dated 12th December, 2013 and among other things ordered that the categorisation of the steel producers who in no way be seen as a certification of the quality of steel-produced. Quality certification would be as per the Bureau of Indian Standard (BIS) or any other designated authorities as per the BIS Act. The writ petitioner submitted representation on 9th September, 2015 with a request to approve them as ‘Primary Steel Producer” for the Central Public Works Department, being one of the appellants herein. In the meantime, the notification issued by the Ministry of Steel, Government of India dated 24th April, 2015 was superseded by a notification dated 12th May, 2016 among other things holding that the listing of the steel producers will be purely for statistical purpose and will have no bearing on the quality of steel produced and it is upto the users to ascertain the quality of the steel products to be procured, as per the relevant standards. Further, it was notified that no steel producers will be classified/certified as ‘Integrated Steel Producers’, ‘Primary Steel Producers’, ‘Secondary Steel Producers’, ‘Main Producers’, ‘Major Producers’ or ‘Others’ by the Ministry of Steel or Joint Plant Committee. Further, the classification/ certification issued by the