Allowed

Om International and Anr. v. Metal Scrap Trade Corporation Limited and 7 Ors.

Gauhati HC9 Jun 2025WP(C)/6603/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

E-auction purchaser of a scrapped vessel challenged refusal to refund his bid amount after the vessel sank in flood water and became untraceable before handover. The court found departmental records and an enquiry report showed the vessel was submerged prior to the handing-over order, attributed no fault to the purchaser, allowed the writ petition and directed refund with a mechanism for recovery

What did the court decide?

Refund of Rs. 8,00,001/- to the petitioner by respondent nos. 3 & 5 within 30 days; respondent no. 1 to remit any retained portion to the Director, IWT within 15 days.

Om International and Anr. Vs Metal Scrap… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Gauhati HC (2025)

Page No.# 1/13

GAHC010261552024

undefined

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/6603/2024

¶6

OM INTERNATIONAL AND ANR

¶7

A PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI AMIT AGARWALA, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 2ND FLOOR, NEAR HOTEL RITURAJ, KEDAR ROAD, GUWAHATI, KAMRUP(M), ASSAM, PIN781001.

¶8

2: AMIT AGARWALA

¶9

S/O- SRI OM PRAKASH AGARWALA R/O- KEDAR ROAD GUWAHATI-781001 DIST. KAMRUP(M) ASSA

¶10

VERSUS

¶11

METAL SCRAP TRADE CORPORATION LIMITED AND 7 ORS REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR, HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT PLOT NO. CF-18/2, STREET NO. 175, ACTION AREA 1C, NEW TOWN, KOLKATA-700156.

¶12

2:THE BRANCH MANAGER

¶13

METAL SCRAP TRADE CORPORATION LIMITED HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT MSTC LIMITED BSNL EXCHANGE BUILDING BELTOLA BASISTHA ROAD WIRELESS GUWAHATI ASSAM-781038.

¶14

3:THE STATE OF ASSAM

¶15

REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006.

¶16

Page No.# 2/13

¶17

4:INLAND WATER TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR ULUBARI GUWAHATI-7. 5:THE DIRECTOR INLAND WATER TRANSPORT ULUBARI GUWAHATI-07. 6:JOINT DIRECTOR INLAND WATER TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT ULUBARI GUWAHATI-07.

¶18

7:EXECUTIVE ENGINEER IWT DIVISION JORHAT. 8:JUNIOR ENGINEER N.K. FERRY SERVICE INLAND WATER TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT JORHAT DIVISION

¶19

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR R SINGHA, MS S PATOWARY

¶20

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, IWT, MS. P BARUAH (R-1,2)

¶21

BEFORE

¶22

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR

¶23

JUDGMENT & ORDER (Oral)

¶24

Date : 10.06.2025

¶25

Heard Mr. R. Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Baruah, learned counsel representing the respondent nos. 1 & 2 and Ms. M. D. Bora, learned Standing Counsel, Transport Department appearing for the respondent no. 3 to 8.

¶26

2. The petitioner, by instituting the present proceeding has presented a

¶27

Page No.# 3/13

¶28

challenge to a order dated 15.10.2024, issued by the respondent no. 6, refusing to extend the period for lifting of the auctioned vessels by contending that the Directorate has no responsibility for the physical condition of the auctioned vessels in question.

¶29

3. The respondent nos. 1 & 2, vide an auction notice dated 31.07.2023, had put up for E-auction unutilized damaged vessels of the Directorate of Inland Water Transport for auction. The petitioner, in pursuance to the said auction notice had submitted its bids for 3(three) Lots i.e. Lot No. 2.0, Lot No. 4.0 and Lot No. 5.0. On the bidding process being taken to its logical conclusion, the petitioner was found to be the highest bidder for the 3 Lots for which it had submitted its bids. Accordingly, on being issued with an acceptance letter/sale order by the respondent nos. 1 & 2, the petitioner furnished the required payments for the materials involved in the 3 Lots for which it had submitted its bids. Accordingly, the petitioner was issued with 2(two) different delivery orders dated 19.08.2023 and 05.09.2023, respectively. While the delivery order dated 19.08.2023 pertains to Lot No. 2.0 and Lot No. 4.0, the delivery order dated 05.09.2023 pertains to Lot No. 5.0. In terms of the delivery order dated 19.08.2023, the petitioner was to lift the materials involved by 17.09.2023 and with regard to the delivery order dated 05.09.2023, the materials involved was to be lifted by 04.10.2023. The vessels involved being anchored in river banks and on account of the rising water of the river, the same having been submerged, the petitioner vide his communication dated 11.09.2023, requested the respondent no. 6 for an extension of the time for lifting the materials involved. The said request from the petitioner as made vide the communication dated 11.09.2023 was accepted by the respondents and the Director, Inland Water Transport, Assam, i.e., the respondent no. 5 vide communication dated 20.09.2023, extended the period of lifting of the materials allotted to the petitioner for a period of 2(two) months up-to 30.11.2023.

¶30

Page No.# 4/13

¶31

4. It is to be noted that the petitioner was facilitated to lift the materials involved in Lot No. 2.0 and Lot No. 5.0. However, with regard to the materials involved in Lot No. 4, the same could not be lifted by the petitioner, inasmuch as, by the time requisite directions came to be issued by the respondent no. 5, the vessel involved in Lot No. 4 was totally submerged in the flood water and the same was not traceable. Accordingly, the petitioner approached the respondent no. 5 for refund of the amount of Rs. 8,00,001.00/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs and one) deposited by it against the vessels involved. However, the same not being responded to, the petitioner again vide his communication dated 22.05.2024, requested the respondent no. 5 to release the money involved.

¶32

5. In response to the said communications issued by the petitioner, the respondent no. 6 vide communication dated 15.10.2024, informed the petitioner that the Directorate had already required him to lift the auction vessels on the delivery order issued by the respondent nos. 1 & 2 and the auction vessel was now his sole property. Extension of time was also granted to the petitioner for lifting of the vessels concerned. Accordingly, it was held that the Directorate was not responsible, in any manner, for the physical condition of the auction vessels and no further extension for lifting of the vessel concerned was warranted from the Directorate.

¶33

Being aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted the present proceeding.

¶34

6. Mr. R. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, by reiterating the facts noticed herein above has submitted that the present proceeding is limited to the vessel involved in Lot No. 4.0, inasmuch as, he was facilitated to lift the vessels involved in Lot No. 2.0 and Lot No. 5.0. Mr. Sinha has submitted that the bids of the petitioner having been found to be the highest with regard to the vessel involved in Lot No. 4.0, he had remitted the bid amount along with the charges involved, totaling Rs. 8,00,001.00/- to the respondent nos. 1 & 2 and accordingly,

¶35

Page No.# 5/13

¶36

he was issued with a delivery order dated 19.08.2023 for the vessel concerned. Mr. Sinha submits that after issuance of the delivery orders by the respondent nos. 1 & 2 involved, the vessels not being permissible to be lifted on account of the same submerged in flood waters, the petitioner had approached the respondent no. 6 vide a communication dated 11.09.2023 for extension of time for lifting of the vessels in question. The said request was accepted by the Directorate of Inland Water Transport, Assam and the period of lifting was extended till 30.11.2023 by the Director, Inland Water Transport, Assam, vide communication dated 20.09.2023. Mr. Sinha submits that in terms of the extension granted, he was facilitated to lift the vessels involved in Lot No. 2.0 and Lot No. 5.0 of the auction notice dated 31.07.2023. However, the Directorate of Inland Water Transport, Assam, not having issued the handing over order of the vessel involved in Lot No. 4 to the petitioner, and the same having been issued only on 14.11.2023 i.e. almost after 3(three) months from the date of delivery order so issued by the respondent nos. 1 & 2, a delay had occasioned in lifting of the vessels in question.

¶37

7. Mr. Sinha, learned counsel by referring to the photographs annexed to the writ petition has submitted that when the order for handing over of the vessel in question was issued by the Directorate, the said vessels was completely submerged in the flood water and the same was not traceable. Mr. Sinha, learned counsel submits that an enquiry was conducted into the matter and the committee so constituted, vide its report dated 15.12.2024 had concluded that the vessels in question involved in Lot No. 4.0 of the auction notice dated 31.07.2023 was not at its anchoring spot and the same was submerged or displaced within depths of the river. Mr. Sinha has submitted that the vessels in question having been submerged and having remained untraceable, even before 14.11.2023, no fault could be attributed to the petitioner for non-lifting of the same, inasmuch as, at the time of issuance of the handing over order of the vessels dated 14.11.2023, the same was untraceable and the said position continued till the date of inspection by the

¶38

Page No.# 6/13

¶39

committee constituted in the matter on 14.12.2024 and 15.12.2024.

¶40

8. Mr. Sinha, learned counsel has submitted that the contentions raised by the respondent no. 6 in the communication dated 15.10.2024 are clearly perverse, inasmuch as, the vessel in question, much prior to the date of issuance of the said communication was already submerged in the flood waters and the same also remained untraceable. Accordingly, he submits that the said communication being so issued contrary to the records maintained in the matter by the Directorate itself, would mandate an interference from this Court. Mr. Sinha, learned counsel, in the above premises has submitted that he having remitted the bid amount along with the charges on the vessels involved in Lot No. 4.0 being allotted to him, the same being not traceable, the amount deposited by the petitioner would mandate a refund from the respondent authorities. Accordingly, Mr. Sinha, submits that the amount of Rs. 8,00,001.00/- deposited by the petitioner in respect of the vessels involved in Lot No. 4.0, namely, M V Kameng (Assam-398) is required to be refunded to the petitioner herein.

¶41

9. Per contra, Ms. M. D. Bora, learned Standing Counsel, Transport Department has submitted that on the delivery order being issued to the petitioner in respect of the vessel involved in Lot No. 4.0 and upon deposit of the entire bid value against the said auctioned vessel being made, it was the responsibility of the petitioner to take delivery of the same before the last date fixed i.e., 17.09.2023. Ms. Bora, learned counsel submits that in response to a request made by the petitioner, the Directorate had vide communication dated 20.09.2023, extended the date for lifting of the vessels auction and allotted to it as a goodwill measure only. Ms. Bora, has further submitted that the vessel involved in Lot No. 4.0 being in a damaged condition, the petitioner on being allotted the said vessel pursuant to the auction process involved, was required to take proper initiative to safeguard the said vessel, which after the auction had become the property of the petitioner.

¶42

Page No.# 7/13

¶43

10. Ms. Bora, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that although, the said vessel in terms of the enquiry report submitted by the constituted committee, was revealed to be not traceable, it having been submerged in the flood waters, Ms. Bora highlights that said enquiry report was submitted after an inspection carried out on 14.12.2024 and 15.12.2024 and the said report would not confer any right to the petitioner with regard to his claim for refund of the said bids amount deposited by him, inasmuch as, the petitioner had ample opportunity to lift the auction vessel prior to it being submerged in the flood waters.

¶44

11. In the above premises, Ms. Bora, learned Standing Counsel submits that the claim made by the petitioner in the present writ petition would not mandate an acceptance by this Court and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶45

12. Ms. P. Baruah, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 and 2 submits that on the petitioner remitting the bid value involved and issuance of delivery orders for the vessels involved, it was the responsibility of the petitioner to lift the vessels involved, within the time frame prescribed. She further submits that the bid value involved has already been remitted by the respondent no. 1 & 2 to the Directorate of Inland Water Transport, Assam and no liability can be attached to the respondent no. 1 and, in the matter, on account of non-lifting of the vessel involved by the petitioner.

¶46

13. I have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and also perused the materials available on record.

¶47

14. In pursuance to an E-auction notice dated 31.07.2023, the bids submitted by the petitioner against 3 Lots being Lot. No. 2.0, Lot No. 4.0 and Lot No. 5.0 were found to be the most suitable, he was declared as the qualified bidder against the said 3 Lots. The materials put up for auction were damaged vessels of the Directorate of Inland Water Transport, Assam, which were declared as “scrap materials”. The petitioner was thereafter, issued with Acceptance Letter/Sale Order

¶48

Page No.# 8/13

¶49

by the respondent no. 1 Corporation.

¶50

15. A perusal of the said sale order would go to reveal that the bid value submitted by the petitioner was accepted and he was requested to deposit the balance amount so payable. On the formalities being completed and the requisite amounts being deposited by the petitioner herein, the petitioner came to be issued with delivery orders dated 19.08.2023 and 05.09.2023. The delivery order dated 19.08.2023 pertains to the vessels involved in Lot No. 2.0 and Lot No. 4.0 and the delivery order dated 05.09.2023, pertains to the vessel involved in Lot No. 5. In terms of the delivery order dated 19.08.2023, the petitioner was to take delivery of the vessels involved in Lot No. 2.0 and Lot No. 4.0 by 17.09.2023 and in terms of the delivery order dated 05.09.2023; the delivery of the vessels involved in Lot No. 5 was to be so taken by 04.10.2023. After issuance of the said delivery orders, the actual date of lifting of the vessels involved was not possible to be freed on account of the fact that the vessels involved in the Lots awarded to the petitioner were submerged in flood water. Accordingly, the petitioner had approached the respondent no. 5, praying for extension of time for lifting of the vessels in question. In response to such request made by the petitioner, the Director, Inland Water Transport, Assam, vide his communication dated 20.09.2023, extended the period for lifting of the vessels involved for further 2(two) months i.e. up to 30.11.2023 for all the Lots involved.

¶51

16. At this stage, it is to be noted that the petitioner was facilitated to lift the vessels involved in Lot No. 2.0 and Lot No. 5.0 and the dispute arising in the present proceeding, pertains to the vessel involved in Lot No. 4.

¶52

17. The materials brought on record reveal that after the delivery orders for lifting of the vessels involved is issued by the respondent no. 1 Corporation, a further direction is required to be issued by the Director, Inland Water Transport, Assam, to the concerned authority under whose possession, the vessel concerned

¶53

Page No.# 9/13

¶54

was kept. In connection with the lifting of the vessel being M V Kameng (Assam398) involved in Lot No. 4, the Director, Inland Water Transport, Assam, on 14.11.2023 issued requisite direction to the Junior Engineer, N/K Pheri Service, to hand over the unserviceable vessel i.e. the vessel involved in Lot No. 4 in “as is where is condition” to the petitioner herein. In the said communication, it was reflected that the petitioner had deposited the bid value of Rs. 8,00,001.00/- for the vessel being M V Kameng (Assam-398).

¶55

18. The petitioner, in the present proceeding has contended that the vessel in question was not permissible to be lifted in absence of requisite directions issued in this connection by the Director, Inland Water Transport, Assam and by the time the communication dated 14.11.2023 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) was so issued, the vessel in question was already submerged in the flood water. In this connection, the petitioner has relied upon the photographs taken by the departmental authorities on 12.10.2023, which reveals that as of 12.10.2023, the vessel in question was not found at the place it was anchored. Accordingly, the petitioner moved before the Director, Inland Water Transport, Assam, for refund of the amount deposited by him against the scrapped vessel being M V Kameng (Assam-398) , which was allotted to him by the respondent no. 1 Corporation in pursuance to an E-auction process undertaken. The representation submitted by the petitioner was responded to by the Joint Director (T), Inland Water Transport, Assam, i.e. the respondent no. 6 herein, vide a communication dated 15.10.2024. The contents of the said communication being relevant, is extracted herein below:

¶56

“ From: The Joint Director (T)

¶57

Inland Water Transport, Assam, Ulubari, Guwahati-7

¶58

To: OM INTERNATIONAL

¶59

Page No.# 10/13

¶60

Narayan Enclave, Kedar Road, Ghy-01

¶61

[email protected]

¶62

Sub: Regarding extension of lifting period of the vessel MV Kameng thereof.

¶63

Ref: Your letter no: Nil dtd. 11/09/2023

¶64

Letter no: Nil dtd. 11/12/2023 Letter no: Nil dtd. 14/03/2024 Letter no: Nil dtd. 22/05/2024

¶65

Sir,

¶66

In inviting reference to the subject and your letter cited above, I am directed to inform you that you have participated in the bidding process during' 2023 after conducting site inspection of the vessel and subsequently you have won the bid and deposited the bid value through MSTC to the Government of Assam exchequer.

¶67

After deposition of bid value, this Directorate has intimated to you for lifting the auctioned vessel based on the delivery order issued by MSTC. Now the above auctioned vessel is your sole property. However, as per your request this Directorate extended the lifting period until 30th Nov 2023. This extension was issued to you only on goodwill as per your request.

¶68

In the light of above, this Directorate hold no responsibility for the physical condition of the auctioned vessel. Hence, any further extension of the lifting order is not warranted from this Directorate. This is for your information and necessary action.

¶69

Yours faithfully

¶70

Signed by Bikramaditya Choudhury Daten 15-10-2024(14:30:13) Inland Water Transport, Assam Ulubari, Guwahati-7”

¶71

19. A perusal of the said communication dated 15.10.2024, would reveal that the

¶72

Page No.# 11/13

¶73

Directorate had taken a stand after the vessel in question was allotted to the petitioner, on completion of the E-auction process for the same by the respondent no. 1 Corporation, he was intimated to lift the auction vessel based on the delivery order issued by the respondent no. 1 Corporation and the vessel in question was his sole property. Accordingly, while denying further extension of time for lifting of the vessel, the Directorate projected that it had no responsibility for the physical condition of the auction vessel.

¶74

20. At this stage, it is to be noticed that with regard to the contentions made by the petitioner that the vessel in question as of 12.10.2023 was completely submerged in the river water and was untraceable and the reliance placed by the petitioner on the photographs taken by the departmental authorities in this connection and annexed as Annexure-20 (colly) was not disputed to by the Director, Inland Water Transport, Assam, in the affidavit filed in the present proceeding. Accordingly, as of 12.10.2023, it is an admitted position that the said vessel was untraceable.

¶75

21. The respondents in their affidavit has brought on record an enquiry report dated 15.12.2024, prepared in pursuance to a joint spot verification of the auction vessel i.e. M V Kameng (Assam-398) on 14.12.2024 and 15.12.2024.

¶76

22. A perusal of the said enquiry report would go to reveal that the vessel in question was not found at its location, where it had been anchored as the spot has been washed away due to erosion along the river bank. It was further brought on record in the said report that the vessel remained submerged in the water or may have been washed away and accordingly, it was concluded that based on the joint spot verification, the vessel in question was currently not in its anchoring spot and the condition of the anchoring ropes suggested that the vessel to be submerged or displaced within the depths of the river. The said enquiry report dated 15.12.2024, when considered in the light of the photographs brought on record by the

¶77

Page No.# 12/13

¶78

petitioner, which were admittedly taken by the departmental authorities, goes to reveal that prior to 12.10.2023, the said vessel was completely submerged and it’s whereabouts not known. In such view of the matter, when the respondent no. 5 had issued the communication dated 14.11.2023, directing the concerned authority of the Directorate under whose possession, the vessel was so kept to hand over the same to the petitioner herein, it is seen that the whereabouts of the said vessel was not known, inasmuch as, it was completely submerged in the depths of the river and may also have been washed away from the place where it was anchored.

¶79

23. In view of the said factual position existing in the matter for the non-lifting of the vessel in question by the petitioner within the extended period of time granted to him i.e., till 30.11.2023, no fault on the part of the petitioner for such non-lifting can be attributed. When the vessel itself was fully submerged and its whereabouts not being able to be traced out even as of 12.10.2023 i.e., even before issuance of the said communication dated 14.11.2023 for handing over the same to the petitioner, the petitioner cannot be saddled with any responsibility in this connection.

¶80

24. It is to be noted that it is the duty of the departmental officials to hand over the auction vessel to the petitioner and the departmental authorities admittedly, were not in a position to hand over the same to the petitioner herein, on account of the fact that the vessel itself on being submerged in the river was untraceable.

¶81

25. In view of the above admitted position with regard to the existence of the said vessel in question and it being admittedly, not being in a position to be so handed over to the petitioner by the department authorities, this Court is of the considered view that the claim made by the petitioner for refund of the amount of Rs. 8,00,001.00/- so deposited by him in respect of the vessel being M V Kameng (Assam 398) involved in Lot No. 4.0 of the auction notice dated 31.07.2023 is a

¶82

Page No.# 13/13

¶83

reasonable claim and the petitioner is entitled to receive the said amount from the Director, Inland Water Transport.

¶84

26. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled for a direction for being refunded the amount of Rs. 8,00,001.00/- so deposited by him in respect of the vessel being M V Kameng (Assam 398) involved in Lot No. 4.0 of the E-auction notice dated 31.07.2023. Accordingly, the respondent nos. 3 & 5 are directed to refund to the petitioner the amount of Rs. 8,00,001.00/-.

¶85

27. The respondent nos. 3 & 5 shall remit to the petitioner the full amount of Rs. 8,00,001.00/- within the period of 30(thirty) days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. It is further provided that in the event, out of the said amount of Rs. 8,00,001.00/-, any amount has been retained by the respondent no. 1 Corporation, the same shall be remitted by it to the account of the Director, Inland Water Transport, Assam within a period of 15(days) from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶86

28. It is further directed that the direction for release of the amount of Rs. 8,00,001.00/- by the respondent nos. 3 & 5 shall be complied by them even if the amount required to be remitted to them by the respondent no. 1 Corporation, is not so remitted within the period directed herein above and the respondent nos. 3 & 5 would be entitled to recover the said amount from the respondent no. 1 in a manner known to law.

¶87

29. With the above observations and directions, the present writ petition stands allowed.

¶88

JUDGE

¶89

Comparing Assistant

Om International and Anr. v. Metal Scrap Trade Corporation Limited and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om International and Anr. v. Metal Scrap Trade Corporation Limited and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamal Kumar Sarma Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Gautam Dekaraja and 4 Ors. Vs the Assam Power Distribution Company Ltd. and 6 Ors.

Star Cement Meghalaya Limited Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Ramani Kakati Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Prosenjit Das Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Barnali Nath and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.