JUDGMENT

(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA)

This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the petition following reliefs:-

“(b) This Hon'ble Court will be pleased to issue writ of or in the nature of mandamus quashing and setting aside the impugned communication dated 22.11.2010 issued by the respondent-AR

(c) This Hon'ble Court will be pleased to issue writ of or in the nature of manda respondent-ARCIL to accept the tender bid of the petitioner-company and fur respondent-ARCIL to confirm the sale in favour of the petitioner-company in respect of the assets of M/s Mardia Steel Ltd.

(d) This Hon'ble Court will be pleased to issue writ of or in the nature of mandamus qu aside the action of the respondent-ARCIL in cancelling the auction,

(e) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, this Honourable Court direct the respondent-ARCIL to maintain status quo regarding the properties Mardia Steel Ltd. put to auction sale vide public notice dated 27.09.2010;

(f) That ex-parte ad interim relief in terms of the above prayer clause be granted.”

2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this writ petition can be summarised as under:-

3. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act challenge the legality and validity of the communication dated 22nd November 2010 issued b ARCIL in rejecting the bid of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner-company had declined to increase the bid amount. Challenge in this writ petition is also to the action of the respondent-ARCIL in can proceedings without assigning any reasons. According to the petitioner, the action of the respondent in canceling the auction proceedings is illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unreasonable and mala fide. It is the case of the petitioner that a writ of mandamus deserves to be issued directing the respondent-ARCIL to accept the bid petitioner company and confirm the sale of assets of M/s Mardia Steel Limited (in liquidation petitioner company.

4. It appears that the respondent-ARCIL, supposed to be an asset reconstruction company engaged of resolution of Non Performance of the Financial Assets (NPAs) upon acquisition from Financial Institutions, issued an advertisement for sale of the assets of the company viz. M/s Ma The advertisement was issued on 27th September 2010 in 'the Economic Times'. Similarly, an issued in daily vernacular Gujarati newspaper also for sale of the assets of Mardia Steel Limited. The advertisement, the assets of M/s Mardia Steel Limited were put to sale on “As is Where is Basis”. The reserve price for the assets described in the advertisement was Rs.100 crore. The Earnest Money Deposit payable was Rs.5 crore. The petitioner as per the advertisement procured the bid document Rs.1,000/- and submitted the duly filled in bid document along with the Demand Draft of Rs Earnest Money Deposit. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner submitted the bid for purchase of property of M/s Mardia Steel Limited for an amount of Rs.100.10 crore. In the auction three companies which are as under:-

Name of the Company	Bid Amount
1. Parshwa Trading Company	Rs. 100 Crores
2. Electrotherm India Limited	Rs. 100.10 Crores
3. Rapport Trading Limited	Rs. 100.01 Crores

5. It is the case of the petitioner that offer of Parshwa Trading Company was rejected as it failed to submit the Earnest Money Deposit along with the bid document. In the same manner, the offer o Limited was rejected as the offer was conditional and it submitted price bid for the asset According to the petitioner, they were the only valid bidder left in the fray and its bid o been accepted by the respondent.

6. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent-ARCIL demanded more amount and ask increase the amount of bid. This was not accepted by the petitioner