M/S B R Steel Corporation vs. The Union Of INDIA And 3 Ors

Held

The Court noted that both the petitioner's counsel and respondent no. 5's counsel agreed that the articles could be lifted at the rate offered by respondent no. 5 in the new tender process, given the common partner and the fact that the materials had been lying since 2022. This suggestion was not objected to by the respondent BSNL. Consequently, the Court directed the completion of the e-auction initiated by the subsequent notice dated 25.02.2022, allowing respondent no. 5 to lift the articles at their offered rate of Rs. 4,77,912/- (including GST and TCS). The Court further directed that the amount deposited by the petitioner be adjusted towards the final amount, and the additional amount be paid by respondent no. 5. The entire process was to be completed expeditiously within 45 days. The Court did not explicitly decide on the alleged discrepancy in quantity from the initial auction, opting for a practical resolution based on the parties' agreement.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s B R Steel Corporation, participated in an e-auction initiated on 20.10.2021 for the sale of Fibre Distribution Frame and STM16 MADM. The petitioner claims to have been the highest bidder, depositing Rs. 4,17,134/- (including GST and TCS). Upon seeking delivery, the petitioner found the quantity of materials to be less than stated. Despite representations, the respondent authority issued a fresh e-auction notice dated 25.02.2022. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging this. The Court directed that any decisions in the fresh auction would be subject to the writ petition's outcome. Respondent no. 5, Shree Basuki Trading, participated in the subsequent auction.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to delivery of the materials as per the initial e-auction notice, considering the alleged discrepancy in quantity? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning contract terms and delivery obligations). 2. Whether the subsequent e-auction process initiated by the respondent authority is valid, given the pendency of the petitioner's claim? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the materials were found to be less than the quantity stated in the initial auction notice, and their representation was not considered. They also highlighted that respondent no. 5, a participant in the subsequent auction, shares a common partner with the petitioner. Revenue/State's arguments: The respondent BSNL, through its Standing Counsel, provided instructions regarding the difference in bid amounts. The learned counsel for respondent no. 5 agreed with the petitioner's counsel that the articles could be lifted at the rate offered by respondent no. 5 in the new tender process.