The court dismissed a writ petition challenging a tender cancellation and forfeiture order. The court held that the petitioner failed to lift agricultural stock within the stipulated time and that the delay in approaching the court amounted to laches.
Prayer for quashing the order dated 25.10.1994 was denied.
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.
OJC No. 7981 of 1995
09. 17.08.2016 Heard Shri B. Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioner as
well as Mr. P.K. Muduli, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State-opposite parties an
d perused the record.
2. In response to the Short Tender Call Notice dated 6th August, 1994 issued by o
pposite party No.2 for sale of sub-standard non seed paddy and Ground nut, the petitioner had
submitted its rate which was accepted and on 22.08.1994 the petitioner was required to lift th
e non seed paddy within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the letter which period expir
ed on 05.09.1994. Instead of lifting the paddy, on 10.09.1994, the petitioner raised a dispute
with regard to chargeability of 12% of sales tax instead of 4%. The matter was thereafter set
tled and the contention of the petitioner was accepted that the rate of sales tax chargeable w
ould be 4%. Consequently, on 26.09.1994, the petitioner was intimated with a telegram as well
as order/letter intimating that the petitioner may lift the items within fifteen days and that
the rate of sales tax chargeable would be 4%.
3. From the record, it is clear that in the next fifteen days from 26.09.1994 whi
ch expired on 11.10.1994, the petitioner did not raise any dispute and thereafter on 22.10.199
4, he sent a telegram as well as made a representation praying for time upto 30.11.1994 for li
fting the stock. Then on 25.10.1994 since the petitioner had not lifted the stock within the s
tipulated time, the Earnest Money of Rs.15,000/- deposited by the petitioner was forfeited and
the tender in favour of the petitioner was cancelled on account of violation of the terms and
conditions of the tender.
4. The petitioner then sent a registered legal notice dated 29.10.1994 to which r
eply was given by the opposite party No.2 on 10.11.1994. Nothing happened thereafter for a per
iod of one year, when in November, 1995 the present writ petition has been filed.
5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there was no
response to the letter dated 22.10.1994 seeking extension of time for lifting the stock upto 3
0.11.1994 and instead the order dated 25.10.1994 was passed canceling the tender and forfeitin
g the security deposit. Further contention is that the petitioner was not intimated the site f
rom where the quantity of the stock had to be lifted. Much reliance has been placed on the com
munication dated 22.10.1994 whereby the only question raised was regarding extension of time f
or lifting the stock up to 30.11.1994.
6. It is noteworthy that such communication was made beyond the period of
fifteen days from 26.09.1994 whereby fifteen days time was granted for lifting the stock. Any
communication made beyond the period has rightly been ignored by the opposite parties. It was
for the petitioner to have immediately contacted the authorities if there was any difficulty
with regard to the place and quantity of stock which was to be lifted by the petitioner. The o
rder dated 25.10.1994 was passed on account of the fact that the petitioner did not lift the s
tock within the stipulated time. Every transaction has to be completed within the time limit o
r else the purpose of granting time would be defeated. The stock in question is an agricultura
l produce, which if not lifted within a specified time, would deteriorate in its quality. Afte
r the order of forfeiture dated 25.10.1994 was passed, a legal notice was given by the petitio
ner which was duly replied by the opposite parties within two weeks and thereafter the petitio
ner kept quite and did nothing for the next one year. Laches on the part of the petitioner has
also not been explained in approaching this Court for such delay.
7. In such view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the prayer made in this
writ petition for quashing order dated 25.10.1994 does not deserve to be granted in the afore
said facts.
The petition is accordingly dismissed.
.......
( VINEET SARAN )
CHIEF JUSTICE
....
( DR. B.R. SARANGI ) JUDGE
dm
-3-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition for quashing the order dated 25.10.1994 cancelling the tender and forfeiting the deposit deserves to be granted.
Whether the petitioner's delay in approaching the court for over a year constitutes laches.
Petitioner
Opposite Party No.2 / State
VINEET SARAN
DR. B.R. SARANGI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court