Dismissed

M/s. 1DL Explosives Limited v. Singareni Collieries Company Limited

Telangana HC13 Feb 2025WA/116/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court dismissed writ appeals filed by an explosives company against its disqualification from a Singareni Collieries tender due to a ban issued by Coal India. The Court held that, given the public interest in the smooth supply of bulk explosives and the creation of third-party rights, it was not inclined to interfere with the completed tender process.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeals dismissed with no order as to costs; third party contracts remain unaffected.

M/s. 1DL Explosives Limited Vs Singareni Collieries… — Company and Corporate | Telangana HC (2025)

[³⁴⁴⁶ J

I I I r I t

I t a ,, l !

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF^TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶5

THURSDAY,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE RENUKA YARA

¶9

WRIT APPEAL NOs: 116 AND 117 OF 2025

¶10

WRIT APPEAL NO: 116 OF 2025

¶11

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Preferred Against Order Dated 2811012024 Passed in WP No 28706 of 2024 on the file of the High Court.

¶12

Between:-

¶13

M/s. 1DL Explosives Limited, IDL Access Road, Kukatpally, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500072 Represented by its authorized signatory Mr- D. Sandeep Kumar, S/o. Samba Siva Rao Aged 39 years

¶14

...APPELLANT

¶15

AND

¶16

1 Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Represented by its General Manager, Corporate Material Procurement Department. Bhadradri Kothagudem^- 507101

¶17

M/s. Keltech Energies Pvt. Ltd, 7th Floor, Embassy lcon, No.3, lnfantry Road, Banglore, Karnataka, lndia - 560001

¶18

ldeal lndustrial Explosives Ltd., 2nd floor, ldea Towers Sy No 115, Opp BHEL Enclave Akbar Road Tadband Secunderabad 500009

¶19

...RESPONDENTS

¶20

IA NO: 2 OF 2025

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the crrcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleased to suspend the lmpugned Judgment dated 28 10.2024^passed by the Ld. Single Judge in W.P. No. 287 06 ot 2024, including by suspending the disq ualification order dated 07.10.2024 issued by the Respondent No^'1 , pending the disposal of the above Appeal

¶22

¶23

Shorr of unnecessary details, the relevant fact-s^which have given rise to the litigation are that on 23.07.L:O2l tlre Coal IndiaL Limited (CIL) issued a tender for suppl1 of bulk explosives^rrr the subsidiaries of CIL. Accordingly. the bid of the appellant for the said tender was acceptr:d. On 12.03.2024, the CIL issued a show cause notic,:r to the appeliant^,;tating that pursuant to a complair:t being received from the Ministry of Coal, Minr:s and Parliamentary Affairs, it was found that the appellant did not meet the necessary criteria to be classified ar, Class-l was Local Supplier and the response of the appellimt sought for rn this regard.

¶24

In tur.n, on O3.05.2024, the appellant filed a reply to the show cause notice. Oo O2.O7.2024, the CIL issued an order, uherr:by the appellant was balned for awarding of any cont.ri1o1. from CIL or its subsidiaries for a perir;d of two vears, as the^{appeliant was} found to have supprersseC the informatic,r-. and u'ilfullv withheld the informatiorr at the time of submissicn of bid. The appellant filed ,1 re\4e\4r applicatior-r ,lo 18.07.2024 before the Chairman of tlle_ CIL

¶25

)

¶26

j I t

¶27

seeking review^{of the decisiondated 02'07'2024'The} review application^{of the appellant is pending consideration} before the Chairman^{of the CIL. The respondent (Singareni} Collieries Company^{Limited) issued tenders on 27'O3 '2024} for procurement^{of SME Explosives and other accessories'}

¶28

Learned Senior Counsel^{for the appellantsubmits} that the appellant^{submitted its bid andalso} communicated^{the aforesaid ban orderpassed by CIL to the} Singareni Collieries^{CompanyLimited' On 25'07 '2024'the} appellant's bid^{wasselectedasqualified forthe} e-reverse auction^{to be held on 3l'O7 '2024 'The Singareni} Collieries^{CompanyLimited issued a Corrigendum dated} 28.08.2024,^{wherebythe entiretender process pursuantto} the previous tender^{dated 27} 'O3'2O24^{was dropped due to} administrative^{reasons. Afresh/revisedtender dated} 24.Og.2O24^{was issued with a specifrccondition i e} '^Clause 17.O(b).^{The appellant, with an apprehensionthat in the} teeth of Clause^{17'O(b)of revised tender its bid will not be} considered,^{ltled W'P'No'27029of 2024' On 30'O9'2024'} the learned^{Singie Judge passed an interim order in the}

¶29

¶30

said u'rit petition directing the Singareni C,rllieries Company Limited to consider the bid to be submir_ted by the appellan t in terms of Clause IZ .O of the Comrnercial Terms and Conditions of the subject tender and take a decision in the matter. On 07. 1O.2O24, the appelia_,rt was disqualified fr,:m participating in rhe e-reverse auctron on the ground that the CIL had issued a banning or,:ier in relation to rhe appellant. Dissatisfied with the said disqualificatior order, the petitiorrer f,rred w.p.N o.2g706 of 2024. Both tre u.rit petitions were clubbed together. The learned Singie Judge passed the inter.im orderr; on 17.10.2024 and 22.1O.2024 r.-:rtraining the Sing,areni Collieries Corn oanv Limited frotn findizing the bids. Both the writ peritir)r-is u.ere finallv heard and decided b1 the common order lated 2g. iO.2024. This common ordt:r is the subject mitlrer of challenge in these writ appeals

¶31

¶32

The learn,:.C Senior Counsel for the appellant briefly raised tu.o coltt(,ntions. l-irstly. he subrnits that Cia use 17.O makes ir obligatory. ior the Singareni Collieries Company Limiteo tc consider rhe impact of any banning by

¶33

¶34

any other company/subsidiary. Thus, there should^have been application of mind on the factum of banning^the appellalt which was duly disclosed by the appellart in its bid. By taking this Court to certain^{paragraphs of the} counter, learned Senior Counsel submits that^{the Singareni} Collieries Company Limited has not^{consideredthe impact} of banning by the CIL. There should^{have been an} independent application of mind on the said^{aspect and} after exercising discretion in a^{judiciousmanner, decision} should have been taken. In absence^{thereof,the decision} making process is polluted.

¶35

Secondly, it is submitted that after^{the impugned} decision by the iearned Single Judge,^theSingareni Collieries Company Limited has issued the contractⁱⁿ favour of certain contractors.^{Since the tenderprocess was} polluted, the same be^directed to be reconvened^{within a} period of 2-3 months and till such time,^{the present} successful bidders may^continue and thereafter,^ifthe appellant succeeds,^{it may also be given the contract.}

i I i ! I

i i I I I

9 . kar-ned Additional Advocate General appearing for the singarerri coilieries company Limited submits that the appellant,r; r:laim u,as considered, which is evident from paragraph I .1 of the counter filed before the learnecl Single Judge in V/.F,.No.287O6 of 2024, which reads thus:

¶40

.,14. In reply to para No. 16 (c) it is submitted that. the aliegations made by the pedtioner are farse anc denied^rty the respondent No. l, the petitioner ma5. b3 put to str-ict proof of the same. That the petitioner wars well awiu e of the terms arrd conditions of the tende.: before p;rrtrciparins the same. It is pertinent to mentiorl t}-at Clause 3.O does not preclude, the,,r,.rtt petitionel from particrpaling rn the tendcr. That yide order dateci 30.O9.2024 in W.p.No. 22029 of 2O24this Hon,ble Court directec the rcspondents to consider the bid of the petitioner in terrns of Clause 17.(i oi Cornnercial Terms ald Corrdi ions of ths subject tendcr. That the petltioner has alreari-,, uplo:rCecl the banned cert.ificate irom CIL in compliatrr r of lr:rnls ard conditions. Hence, further technical cva-lLration of the lirm is not done as ao shortfall rloctirlclrs ar_c sought consii.:ring the firms present oi rit ned sl,rtus and the offer subnitted by t].e petitione;:^..{ as lrlrl considered artd rvas d.isqua liiled..,

¶41

It is sulb:rrittcd that there is no i-l a1^, in the dectsion making procesr;. Considering the nature of the a.ct i\dty carried out b.y the Sir-Igareni Coilieries Cornpary Lim ited -_

¶42

¶43

andtheimportanceofsupplyingbulkexplosives,apublic interest^{is involvedaldafter completionof the tender} process^{and issuance of contracts' it will not be properto} put the^{clock back orinitiate afresh Proceeding' A} documentbearingRefNo:CRP/MP/Sec'13/Lawl2025l444' supPlied^{bY the learned} dated^{30.01'2O25,was also} contend^{that nine contracts} Additional^{AdvocateGeneral to} have^{been given pursuantto the impugned tender process'} Thus,^{no interferencemaYbe made'}

¶44

1 1.^{The learned Senior Counsel for respondentNo'3 in} W.A.No^{116 of 2025 submits that the writ appeal is hled} belatedll'.^{Although the delay has been condoned'it calnot} be forgotten^{that tnterference in contract matterscan be} made^{with circumspection' Once the contractshave} already^{been granted' it will not be proper to interfere in} the^rvritaPPeals

¶45

12.^The Parties^{haveconfrnedtheir argurnentstothe} extent^{indicated aboveand no otherpoint is pressed'}

¶46

¶47

We have heard the parties at length ald perused the record.

¶48

Clausr: 17 .O of the tender document on which the whole case is founded upon reads thus:

¶49

"17.0 Banned and delisted Suppliers:

¶50

a) The bidders would give a declaration that ftey have not been banned or de-listed by any Governrler t or quas j-Govemment agencies or pSUs. It ..Lie. bidder has been bann ed bv anVGovernmen tor quasr^(isi,spn nlent or PSu.rhrs fact must be clearlv stat.ld arld it !qallLo_.( necessarilv be a cau se for disqualiivins hin . If declaratton is not given, the bid will bc rejected as ron_ responslveb) After submitting the bid and v, hrlc tender is. ur progress if any bidder who submittc_,cl hjs biri ts banned /delisted blq arrv Gcrr.slnylgp, oi qu: LsiGovenlment agencies or pSUs. appropriale lcgal opinron wi.ll be obtarned a:t d rcn.icr rrill be pror.r.ss..:r,i( ,-,,.dino .r.

¶51

However the SCCL manaqement resenes ri,g.rigir;- to .,;k" aI] ate decision in above cases- "

¶52

iEmphasis Sirpphr d)

¶53

Learnecl Senior Counsei for the appeliant sr.ri)mits that the right was reser,.ed \r.i th the manage mer r- lf the Singareni Collieries Corn p.anv Limited tc tak apF,i-o priate decision in the cases ol delistingl banning. Sil c: the

! I I i

banning was^{admittedlydisclosed, the said right to take} appropriate decision^{should have been exercised'In} paragraph 14^of the^{counter liled beforethe learned Single} Judge in^{W.P.No287O6 of 2024 as extracted above' it is} shown that a^{decision has been taken to disqualify the} appellant.

¶60

A careful^{reading ofClause17 'Oreproduced} hereinabove^{sho'*'s that if bidder has been banned by at'y} other body^{and has disclosed this fact clearlyin his bid' as} a rule of thumb,^{SCCLmanagementwill not disqualify him'} The SCCL^{management reserves right to take appropriate} decision in such^{eventuality.The language employed in} the aforesaid^{ciause shows that itenablesthe SCCL} management^{to take an appropriate decision in such cases} where disclosure^{of barning is there' The decisiontaken} by SCCL^{managementin the present case is to disqualify} the petitioner.^{At this stage, we are not inclined to put the} clock back^{ancl direct the Singareni Collieri'es Company} Limited to^{undertakethe entire exercise afresh'The} Singareni^{Collieries CompanyLimited isserving public}

¶61

¶62

I I a ! t

¶63

I t I I I! I i I i i I

¶64

interest. For the smooth production and running of Singaren:L Collieries Company Limited, supply of bulk explosive is essential. Any interference by us at this juncture, will hamper the activity of the indus;try ald consequently will have an adverse impact or pubiic interest. Thus, in the peculiar facts of these cases,, \rre a-re not inclirrecl to interfere in the matter. Morc_r;o, after passing of impugned order, third party rigl-rts are created and contracts have been granted to nine (9) cor tractors ald they zrre not parties before us.

¶65

This is trite that in exercise of. <iiscr.:tionary jurisdiction this Court may not set aside an illeg.rl order even thoug,h it would be iawful to do so

¶66

18 In Shiv Shankar Dal Mills v. State of Haryanar, the

¶67

Apex Court held as under:

¶68

"6. Arlicle 226 grants an extraordrnan rr-incd\ i..lric]_ essentizrllV discretionar_'. althoiir;h Ibri,.a'r:cl,,r tr,:r ;l in:ury Lt_jS--per&-e{y__9pE_n lto!_tie, !qq4, _91!eac1q i.! C this flexible lrowe!, to pass such order a9 Lublic interest dictates andequity Dro iects.

¶69

F-mp l: a sis S,1;..o,i.i I

' 1usol z scc^,r:rz

EIEE];1.-].

In Chandra Singh v. State of^{Rajasthan2,the Apex} Court held as under:

¶75

'43. Issuance of a u.rit of certiorari^{is a discretionarjr} remedy. (See : Champalal Binani v^{CIT, (1971) 3 SCC} 20: AIR l97O SC 645).) The High^Courtand consequently this Court while^{exercisingtheir} extraordinary^{juriscliction} under^{Articlc226 or 32 of the} Constitution of India mav not^{strike downan illegal} order althoush it would be lawful^{todo so. In a given} case. the IIiEh Court or this^{Court mav refuse to} extend the benefit of a dis^{cretionarv relief to the} applicant

¶76

44 ..This Court in Brii Nlohan^{Gupta case} I^(200312 SCC 39O 2OO3 SCC^(L&S) 174t has^{also refused to} exercise its discrctionan' iurisdiction^{inlavour of the} appellants atthor-rgh^{the order of theHieh Court was} found liable to l)c^{setaside beinq not ln accordancewith} law."

¶77

{Emphasrs^Supplied)

¶78

In Master^{Marine Services (Pl ttd. v'Metclfe &}

¶79

Hodgkinson^{(Pl Ltd.3, the Apex Court opined as under:}

¶80

"T?re court should^{alr'''ays keep the largcr publicinterest} in mind in order-^{to clecrdeg'hetherits inten'entionis} called for or^{rrot. O nl-r--hentt comes to a conclusion}

¶81

'^{(2oog)6 scc sas} '^{(2005)6 scc ll8}

¶82

¶83

, !

¶84

thzrt overwhelming public i the ( ourt shourd interfer"., "r""a^{requires .rteJierirrc,-}

¶85

In view of this legal position anci peculiar factual backdropr of this matter, we are not i:rclined to,:61srtai, these writ appeals.

¶86

The writ appeals are accorcliitgl,v dis missed. However, the point raised b y the appella-r-r r u.ill r-en:.ln open to be decided in an appropriate case. There shall be no order as to (Dsts.

¶87

Interlo,:utory appiications, if arly pendine. shrrl stand

¶88

closed

¶89

.o:B',1?ttf#AYtE //rRuEcopy// ^ i <sup>"'l' sEcrro" orr,.." I

¶90

To,

¶91

one CC to SRr TARUN G. REDDy Advo"rt" 1oJ{c1

¶92

¶93

2 One CC to Ms D.VENKATA PADMAJA Advocate [opUC] 3 Two CCs to Additional AD\ GENERAL, High courr for t/re state of rerangana ar Hycierabad. rd8?f" 4 Two CD Copies KKS Ils fr

¶94

l I I t Ei I I I If I r l I It z! : I i i i i : i

¶95

I I i I

¶96

; : iI I I I I I t I I i t t i i I i j

¶97

HIGH COURT

¶98

DATED:1 310212025

¶99

COMMON JUDGMENT