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

2022 Supreme(Guj) 873

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Aravind Kumar, A.J. Shastri, JJ.
Hermes Technologies Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Special Civil Application No. 18145 of 2021
Decided On : 22-08-2022

Advocates appeared:
Anuj H.Dave, Kunan B.Naik, Advocates

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226, 14, 16, 18.3, 27, 21, 19(1)(g) - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Empowers all the High Courts of India to issue the writ - Equality before law The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection - No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law -Whether impugned action is arbitrary or not is to be ultimately answered on facts and circumstances of a given case - A basic and obvious test to apply in such cases is to see whether there is any discernible principle emerging from impugned action and if so, does it really satisfy test of reasonableness –Held, Writ Court should refrain itself from imposing its decision over decision of employer as to whether or not to accept bid of a tenderer - Court does not have expertise to examine terms and conditions of present day economic activities of State and this limitation should be kept in view -Courts should be even more reluctant in interfering with contracts involving technical issues as there is a requirement of necessary expertise to adjudicate upon such issues - Approach of Court should be not to find fault with magnifying glass in its hands, rather Court should examine as to whether decision-making process is after complying with procedure contemplated by tender conditions - If Court finds that there is total arbitrariness or that tender has been granted in a mala-fide manner, still Court should refrain from interfering in grant of tender but instead relegate parties to seek damages for wrongful exclusion rather than to injunct execution of contract, injunction or interference in tender leads to additional costs on the State and is also against public interest - Therefore, State and its citizens suffer twice, firstly by paying escalation costs and secondly, by being deprived of infrastructure for which present-day Governments are expected to work –Petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Ashutosh J. Shastri, J.

1. The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for seeking the following reliefs:

“(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari and or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the termination letter dated 18th August 2021 (Annexure H) issued by the Respondent No. 3 herein by declaring it illegal and bad in law.

(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari and or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to declare the action of Respondent No. 2 in invocation of the Bank Guarantee dated 1st January 2020 bearing Bank Guarantee No. 006GT02200010017 issued by HDFC bank in favour of the Respondent No. 2 (Annexure E) as bad in law, illegal, and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and further be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 2 to repay the amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh Only) to the Petitioner with appropriate interest thereon.

(C) Pending hearing of this petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 2 to immediately repay the amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh Only) to the Petitioner with appropriate interest thereon.

(D) Grant ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (C).

(E) Your Lordships may be pleased to grant such order and further orders/reliefs as may be deemed just and proper in the interest of Justice.”

2. The background of facts which has given rise to filing of present petition is that respondent no. 2 with an intention to enhance the production from the marginal nomination fields by infusion of new technology and expertise invited bids to undertake the operations to enhance the production of 17 onshore areas comprising of producing oil and gas fields by issuing Notice Inviting Offer (for short ‘NIO’) for Production Enhancement Operations in Marginal Nomination Fields. According to the petitioner, after understanding the details of work as provided in the Motera Field Docket (Ahmedabad Asset) as published by the respondent no. 2 in June, 2019 and Model Production Enhancement Contract (For short ‘MPEC’) submitted its e-bid for Contract Area No. ONGC/MNF/2019/CA-3/MOTERA on 20.01.2020. As required under Clause-13(IV) of the said NIO, petitioner submitted a bid bond of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) in the form of Bank Guarantee dated 01.01.2020 issued by HDFC Bank in favour of respondent no. 2 in view of Article 18.3 of the said MPEC, it was stipulated that in case of crude oil and natural gas delivery point at common facilities operated by ONGC for further processing and transportation, the processing and transportation charges shall not be levied and such facility may be provided to the contractor subject to availability. It is further the say of the petitioner that on 14.05.2020, respondent-Corporation accepted petitioner's e-bid and respondent no. 3 issued a Notification of Award (NoA) in favour of petitioner for Contract Area CA-3 comprising of four (4) fields at Motera, South Viraj, Virgovindpura and Wamaj. According to the petitioner, in response to such NoA, the respondent-Corporation arranged filed visit for the petitioner and after concluding the said visit, the Director/s of petitioner were informed about lacunas observed by the authority at various sites. Petitioner also raised concerns about the operation of Motera GGS as contrary to what was provided in the said Motera Field Docket and petitioner was informed by the officers of the ONGC that Motera GGS was not a common facility in terms of Article 18.3 of MPEC and as such, the operational costs of Motera GGS will have to be borne by petitioner. It was also informed that about four (4) wells were mentioned that in the said Motera Field Docket and same will not be allocated to petitioner. In view of the aforesaid exchange of communication between petitioner and the respondent-Corporation, suddenly on 18.08.2021, respondent no. 3 vide Letter No. DL

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top