Back
2024 Supreme(Cal) 466
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.
M/s. IDL Explosives Limited And Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
WPA 20013 of 2019 with CAN 1 of 2020 (Old No. CAN 3885 of 2020)
Decided On : 07-03-2024
For the Petitioners: Mr. Anuruddha Chatterjee, Adv., Mr. Kushal Chatterjee, Adv., Mr. Iftekar Munshi, Adv., Mr. Oishik Chatterjee, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Tilak Kumar Bose, Sr. Adv., Mr. Anubhav Sinha, Adv., Mr. Nikhil Kumar Roy, Adv., Mr. Sunil Kumar Singhania, Adv., Ms. Twinkle Kaur, Adv., Mr. Anubhav Sinha, Adv., Ms. Pallavi Ray, Adv.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court's authority to examine the legality of a non-statutory contract is limited, and the testing authority of CMPDI was found to be in line with the Explosives Rules, 2008.
Headnote:
Explosives - Testing Authority - Explosives Rules, 2008 - Rule 6(12), Rule 6(4), Rule 6(17) - The court discussed the provisions of the Explosives Rules, 2008, particularly Rule 6(12) and Rule 6(4), which mandate the Chief Controller of Explosive as the appropriate authority to verify and instruct the testing of explosives. The court also considered Rule 6(17)(vii), which permits the Central Mine Planning and Design Institute (CMPDI) to conduct field trials and tests of permitted explosives.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitioner, an authorized explosive manufacturer, supplied explosives to Coal India Limited (CIL) under running contracts. CIL tested the explosives through CMPDI, leading to unsatisfactory results and imposition of penalties on the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the testing process and penalties through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the contract between the petitioner and CIL was non-statutory, and the court had no authority to examine its legality. The court also found that the testing authority of CMPDI was in line with Rule 6(17)(vii) of the Explosives Rules, 2008.
Issues: The issues involved the testing authority of explosives, violation of statutory provisions, and the legality of penalties imposed by CIL.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the contract between the parties being non-statutory, the court had no authority to examine its legality. Additionally, the court found that CMPDI's testing authority was in line with the Explosives Rules, 2008.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, finding no merit in the petitioner's claims.
JUDGMENT :
Partha Sarathi Sen, J.
1. In this writ petition as filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ petitioner being an authorized explosive manufacturer and supplier has prayed for a direction upon the respondents, more specifically respondent no.2/ Coal India Limited (CIL in short) to conduct the testing of the explosive as supplied by the writ petitioner to the respondent no.2/CIL by Chief Controller of Explosives with a further prayer for issuance of appropriate writ restraining the respondent no.2/CIL from conducting such test by CMPDI/ respondent no.8 herein pursuant to the notice inviting tender dated 12.07.2019.
2. From the materials as placed before this Court by the parties to the instant writ petition it reveals that respondent no.2/CIL issued notice inviting tender–cum-E-Reserve auction for supply of bulk explosives in the year 2017 and 2019. Pursuant to such Notice Inviting Tenders (NIT in short) the writ petitioner participated in the said tender processes and in course of the bidding process, the writ petitioner is found to be a successful bidder. Thereafter, two running contracts which were valid for two years and commenced from 01.11.2017 and 10.10.2019 respectively were entered into by and between the writ petitioner and the respondent no.2/CIL. In accordance with the terms of contract the writ petitioners supplied permitted explosives to the respondent no.2/CIL which has been tested by the respondent no.8 company/CMPDI and the outcome of the said test result of the explosives are found to be not satisfactory.
3. According to the respondent no.2/CIL for non-supply of requisite standard of explosives pursuant to the said contracts, the respondent no.2/Authority has imposed penalty upon the writ petitioner causing deduction of the bills of the writ petitioner to which the writ petitioner felt aggrieved and filed the instant writ petition. It is pertinent to mention herein that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at the motion stage of the instant writ petition by its order dated 20.11.2019 passed the following order:-
“If any test pertaining to the explosives-in-question are conducted by the respondent no.2 in the meantime, such test will abide by the result of the writ petition.”
4. In support of the instant writ petition Mr. Anuruddha Chatterjee, duly assisted by Mr. Kushal Chatterjee, learned advocates for the writ petitioner at the very outset submits before this Court that respondent no.2/ CIL has violated the provisions of the Explosives Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules of 2008) in allowing the explosives to be tested through CMPDI/ respondent no.8. In course of his argument Mr. Chatterjee, learned advocate for the writ petitioners at the very outset draws attention of this Court to Rule 6(12) of the said Rules of 2008. It is argued on behalf of the writ petitioner that the said Rules mandates that Chief Controller of Explosive is the appropriate authority to verify the approved composition and characteristics of the explosives at the departmental testing station. Drawing attention to Rules 6(4) of the said Rule of 2008 it is further argued that the said Rules further prescribe that it is the Chief Controller of Explosive who can pass appropriate instruction for requiring a sample of explosive tested and the manner in which such sample is required to be forwarded to the departmental testing stage.
5. It is further argued by Mr.Chatterjee, learned advocate for the writ petitioner that from page nos.68 and 69 of the writ petition it would reveal that the present writ petitioner is the manufacturer of the bulk explosives which are required to be delivered in terms of the said NIT and from page no.69 it would further reveal that testing parameter of the said bulk explosives have been enumerated there in details. It is contended on behalf of the writ petitioner that since the respondent no.8/ CMPDI is not authorized under the said Rules of 2008 to conduct such test and
