Through Director Chandrasekhar Prasad Singh S/o D.B.Singh M/s S.K.J. and Company Coal Private Ltd. Vs. Through Managing Director Madhya Pradesh Laghu Udyog Nigam Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri Justice Keshav Kumar Trivedi - Court Judgment

Writ Petition No.1176/2014 11/02/2014 Shri Himanshu Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Heard on the question of admission.

The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 7.12.2013 has approached this Court calling in question the correctness of the said order on the grounds that he was a successful bidder for its appointment as Handling Agent for lifting of the coal and an agreement was executed between the petitioner and the respondent on 7th October, 2009.

The said agreement was for a period of three yeaRs.which expired and, therefore, an extension was ordered vide order dated 12.9.2012 for a period of one year.

Thereafter, proceedings were done, notice inviting tender was issued and work was assigned to the petitioner, but no agreement was being executed between the petitioner and the respondent.

A prayer was made for execution of an agreement in full, but that was not done.

Therefore, the petitioner filed a writ petition being W.P.No.145/2013.

Though the claim was contested in the said case by the respondent, but the learned counsel for the respondent made a statement in the said writ petition that in case a representation is made by the petitioner, the same would be decided without being affected by the stand taken by the respondent in the return.

That being so, believing on such a statement of the counsel for the respondent, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to decide the representation of the petitioner within a period of 15 days.

The said representation is now rejected.

Therefore, this writ petition is required to be filed.

2.

A perusal of the order passed by the respondent indicates that the tender proceedings were done mentioning certain conditions.

The Western Coal Field LTD.(hereinafter referred to as the 'WCL').which was required to provide the coal had imposed a condition that the source allocation, submission of payment and the collection of the delivery order be done by the Corporation authorities and not by the private individuals.

This particular work was assigned to the Handling Agent in terms of the conditions mentioned in the NIT and, therefore, the Corporation has treated that the same would be violative of the terms and conditions prescribed by the Western Coal Field LTD.and as such no action could be taken for granting a contract in terms of the NIT issued by the respondent.

A decision was taken to cancel all the proceedings done pursuant to the NIT published by the respondent and fresh action be taken in accordance to the terms and conditions of the WCL for giving of contract.

3.

In the earlier writ petition as also in this writ petition the WCL is not made a party.

If upon the demand of the WCL it is found by the respondent that certain terms and conditions prescribed in NIT published by the respondent would be violative of the terms and conditions of the WCL, it was necessary to implead the WCL as a party to claim that such terms and conditions prescribed by WCL were violative of any law.

In absence of such a challenge, action taken on the part of the respondent cannot be said to be bad in law.

Further this Court has simply directed the respondent to decide the representation of the petitioner.

The respondent Corporation itself is not the producer of the coal handling of which is required to be done by the individuals.

If the respondent are adhering to the terms and conditions of the producer of the coal, it cannot be said that any illegality is committed by the respondent in recalling its own action which are said to be violative of the terms and conditions of the coal producer.

That being so, interference in the order impugned is not necessary.

4.

There is no substance in the writ petition.

The same is dismissed without notice to the other side.

(K.K.Trivedi) Judge shukla-