The court held that unilateral actions by a public authority that violate contractual obligations are arbitrary and subject to judicial review, allowing for refunds of deposits and payments.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. A. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. A. Kalita, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. As the issues involved in these batch of writ petitions are similar on facts and law, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. Common challenge made is to the impugned e-mail dated 19.04.2023 issued by the respondents for resumption of supply of RPC from the point of its stoppage/withholding, in continuation of the BRD, E-auction dated 01.02.2023 and also for declaration of the Delivery Schedule for RPC supply to the petitioners as per the respective Delivery Orders, to have lapsed, and the contract of supply of RPC to have expired and further to declare that the NRL authority has obligated to refund the security deposits and balance purchase advance payments due to its failure/shortfall in providing the contractually stipulated quantities of RPC.

4. The petitioners are engaged in the business of manufacturing Calcined Petroleum Coke (CPC in short) by processing Raw Petroleum Coke (herein after referred to as RPC in short). The product CPC is extensively used in Aluminum, Graphite, Ferroalloy and allied industries. It is contended that the petitioners have been lifting RPC churned out by the Refinery and has a long-established business relationship with the respondent authority, with outstanding financial credibility and upliftment track record.

5. The respondent NRL, via its auction agency had intimated the petitioners on 05.01.2023 as to the impending Online Forward Auction of RPC, to the tune of 20,000 MTs with respective dates of auction being set on 01.02.2023 and 03.02.2023. The Business Rule Document (herein after referred to as BRD in short) contains terms and conditions of the auction sale of RPC. The auction was held online on 01.02.2023.

6. In WP(C) 2662/2023, the challenge made is to the above impugned e-mail dated 19.04.2023 issued by the respondents for resumption of supply of RPC from the point of its stoppage/withholding on 25.03.2023, in continuation of the BRD, E-auction dated 01.02.2023 and also for declaration of the Delivery Schedule for RPC supply to the petitioner as per the Delivery Order dated 28.02.2023 to have lapsed, and the contract of supply of RPC to have expired and further to declare that the NRL authority has obligated to refund the security deposit of Rs. 58,65,000/- (Rupees Fifty Eight Lakhs Sixty Five Thousand only) and balance purchase advance payment of Rs. 3,03,72,721.25 (Rupees Three Crores Three Lakhs Seventy Two Thousand Seven Hundred Twenty One and Twenty Five Paisa Only) due to its failure/shortfall in providing the contractually stipulated 1000 MT of RPC.

6.1. The petitioner had bid for 1000 MT quantity of RPC. Accordingly, it was duly allotted at a basic price of Rs. 58,650/MT. The NRL/e-auction agency, transmitted the Lot Confirmation Letter on 10.02.2023 and the Delivery Order was issued on 28.02.2023, after deposit of the specified Security Deposit and the Full Payment of Rs. 6,91,48,350/-(Rupees Six Crores Ninety One Lakhs Forty Eight Thousand Three Hundred Fifty only) for the 1000 MT of RPC was also made by the petitioner in advance as per the auction terms and conditions. The petitioner had started physical upliftment of RPC and by 25.03.2023, had provided with 560.76 MT of RPC by the NRL. However, on 27.03.2023, the respondent authorities suddenly issued an email intimating that the upliftment of sanctioned RPC had been entirely put on hold with effect from 25.03.2023 to 15.05.2023, on account of safety concerns in view of Refinery Turnaround 2023. It is contended that prior to and/or during the auction process, there was no intimation of such a prospective Turnaround/Stoppage period, even though this appeared to be a common affair which is anticipated and planned for several months in advance by the NRL authority.

6.2. The petitioner requested for being permitted to lift RPC as i