Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2013 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (2) TMI 370 - HC - Indian LawsE-auction method for sale of chrome ore and chrome ore concentrates to seven enlisted empanelled buyers - petitioner No.1 claims to be a producer of Friable Chrome Ore and Chrome Concentrate & Respondent No.6/Union of India constituted, designated and nominated respondent No.1/MMTC as the sole canalizing agency under the Export & Import Policy - petitioner no. 1 questined mode and manner in which respondent No.1 seeks to work out its role as a canalizing agency in terms of the export and import policy. - Held that:- The petitioner No.1 had a grievance with the earlier policy enlisting seven (7) buyers. It is the petitioners who proposed that global tender would be the answer. Such a course of action was accepted by respondent No.1. Of course, petitioners submits that the proposal for the global tender through e-process was not accompanied with suggestions or a consent on the part of the petitioners qua clauses (a) to (d) of condition (i) but what consider is whether the conditions so imposed can be said to be so arbitrary or illegal that no reasonable person could come to the conclusion of framing such a policy (Wednesbury‟s principle) or that the terms & conditions have been tailor made to suit a particular person/entity [Decision Oriented Systematic Analysis (DOSA)]. It is true that respondent No.1 holds a dual obligation arising from the role it performs, i.e., the first one arising from the process culminating in the contract with the buyer and the second one when those offers are put to the sellers. In order to safeguard its commercial interests, insofar as the contract with the buyer is concerned, clauses (a) to (d) of condition (i) have been inserted as part of “Technical Bid”. No doubt clauses (g) & (h) of condition (i) also seek to safeguard the interest of respondent No.1 but then it cannot be said that respondent No.1 is devoid of the authority of creating additional assurances to safeguard its commercial interests as is sought to be done by clauses (a) to (d) of condition (i). There is also force in the contention of respondents 1 to 5 that petitioner No.1 cannot really make a grievance as a seller as it is the buyers who can be aggrieved by the terms & conditions. It cannot be that a proxy battle can be fought by petitioner No.1. Of course interest of petitioner No.1 is to safeguard its economic interest but that cannot be at the cost of compromising the financial interest of respondent No.1 as a canalizing agent who has taken steps to safeguard those interests. Thus respondent No.1 acted within its domain to lay down terms & conditions for safeguarding its interest qua independent contracts with the buyers and sellers separately. No exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India required.
|