The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging an e-auction of industrial plants. The court found the petitioner lacked bonafides due to failure to deposit prescribed funds as directed and denied locus standi as the petitioner sought personal purchase rather than protecting public interest.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM
THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2011/ 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1933
WP(C).No. 11151 of 2011 (T)
PETITIONER(S):
JOSE JOSEPH VAKAYIL, S/O.JOSEPH, VAKAYIL HOUSE, ST.GEORGE VAKAYIL ROAD MARADU.P.O., THRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.SUNIL V.MOHAMMED SRI.L.RAJESH NARAYAN
RESPONDENT(S):
1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF CHEMICALS AND FERTILISERS SHASTHRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-1.
2. THE FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS TRAVANCORE LTD. (FACT), COCHIN DIVISION, AMBALAMEDU KOCHI-682303, REP.BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR.
3. M/S.METAL SCRAP TRADING CORPORATION LTD. (MSTCL), NO.19/5 & 19/6, 3RD FLOOR KAREEM TOWERS, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE-560052.
4. ANNAM STEELS (PVT.)LTD., NO.3/3-2ND LANE, TH ROAD, WASHERMENPET CHENNAI-600 021, REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI.VIJAYAKUMAR.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA R2 BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR BY ADV. SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR BY ADV. SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI BY ADV. SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPINATH R3 BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR R4 BY ADV. SRI.TITUS MANI BY ADV. SRI.VINO JOSE BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA BY ADV. SRI.P.K.SURESH KUMAR (SR.) BY ADV. SMT.M.R.SREELATHA BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER
BY ADV. SRI.V.J.MATHEW (SR.) BY ADV. SRI.VIPIN P.VARGHESE BY ADV. SMT.GISS ANTONY BY ADV. SRI.CEJO J.THYCHERY BY ADV. SRI.BIJISH B.TOM
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15-122011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 11151 of 2011 (T)
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS EXHIBITS
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS
NIL
TRUE COPY
P.A. TO JUDGE
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J.
W.P.(C) No. 11151 OF 2011
Dated this the 15th day of December , 2011
J U D G M E N T
T he petitioner is challenging Ext.P2 notification and consequent steps initiated by the 3rd respondent through which an e-auction for disposal of Ammonia and Urea plants of the 2nd respondent was conducted. Inter alia he is seeking directions to 1st , 2nd and 3rd respondent for issuance of fresh and proper tender notification after due public notice, so as to fetch best competitive and to avoid loss of public money.
W.P.(C) No. 11151 OF 2011
2
court as W.P.(C) NO. 5541/11 challenging stay order issued by the 2nd respondent through which the subsequent proceedings of the auction sale was put under hold. It is also noticed that the petitioner herein had filed the impleading in the said writ petition.
W.P.(C) No. 11151 OF 2011 3
12-9-2011. Accordingly, a direction was issued to the 2nd respondent to take a final decision regarding the sale of the plants pursuant to the auction already conducted by the 3rd respondent on 22-9-2010. On 26-9-2011 when the matter was again taken up for consideration this court noticed an affidavit filed by the petitioner herein dated 26-8-2011, wherein he has stated that he is ready and willing to deposit a sum of Rs.45 crores within 60 days from 26-8-2011, in order to prove his bonafides and that he is willing to pay interest at the rate of 1% per annum on the said amount deposited from 26-8-2011 onwards. It was submitted on behalf of the 2nd respondent that the Board of Directors, considering the above aspects, had decided to move this court for an order directing the petitioner to deposit Rs.45 crores along with the interest as stated in the affidavit and on such deposit to permit the petitioner to inspect the plants and further to seek concurrence of this court for retaining sch amount of deposits till disposal of the plant by floating a fresh tender. When the writ petitions were considered on the basis of the above submissions, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had pointed out that as per the tender condition, only 10% of bid amount had to be
W.P.(C) No. 11151 OF 2011 4
deposited within 7 days of the auction. The 4th respondent submitted that such deposit has already been made by them and since the petitioner herein had offered deposit of Rs. 45 crores within 60 days, he should be directed to deposit at least 10% of that amount within 10 days, in order to prove his bonafides. On the basis of such contentions raised, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had offered to deposit of 10% of Rs.45 crores on or before 25/10/2011. Accordingly, an order was issued on 26/9/2011, directing the petitioner to deposit with the second respondent a sum of Rs.4.5 crores by way of demand draft/banker's cheque/pay order within 10 days thereof. The second respondent company was directed to keep such deposit if made in fixed deposit in any nationalised bank for a period of 30 days.
W.P.(C) No. 11151 OF 2011 5
Rs.4.5 crores is a precondition for re-auction, on treating the said amount as a security offered by the petitioner. It is evidently clear that the order made for deposit of Rs.4.5 crores was with a view to prove bonafides of the petitioner in challenging the bid confirmed in favour of the 4th respondent. It is only on the basis of such an offer made by the petitioner and on the basis of the requests made on behalf of the 2nd respondent that this court issued a direction for such deposit. Having been failed in complying with such directions the petitioner cannot be permitted to seek any clarification as mentioned above. It is further noticed that the petitioner had filed another application as I.A No.17926 of 2011 seeking to grant 3 more weeks for production of demand draft for Rs.4.5 crores. The said application was filed as early as on 09/11/2011. In spite of lapse of the time sought for, the petitioner has not made any deposit.
W.P.(C) No. 11151 OF 2011 6
protect the interest of the public at large. Therefore, he has no locus standi to challenge the proceedings for sale alleging any loss to public exchequer.
For the reasons stated above I am of the view that this writ petition deserved no further consideration. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed.
smm
C.K. ABDUL REHIM
JUDGE
W.P.(C) No. 11151 OF 2011 7
W.P.(C) No. 11151 OF 2011 8
2 issues framed by the court
Whether petitioner has locus standi to challenge the auction proceedings as a public interest litigant.
Whether petitioner demonstrated bonafides by complying with the court's directed deposit of funds.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
not specifiedReferred¶36
W.P.(C) No. 5541/11
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Jose Joseph Vakayil
The Union of India
The Fertilisers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd.
M/s. Metal Scrap Trading Corporation Ltd.
Annam Steels (Pvt.) Ltd.
C.K. Abdul Rehim
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
