M/S Kedia Trading Company Delhi vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Held

The Court held that the petitioner had not complied with the mandatory conditions of the sale order, specifically conditions No. 2 (deposit of entire sale amount within 30 days) and No. 5 (lifting 25% of the allotted molasses per month). The Court noted that the petitioner had only lifted 28.400 metric tons out of 2000 metric tons. Furthermore, the Court observed that the sale order issued in favour of the petitioner was cancelled on 12-02-2020, and this cancellation order was not challenged by the petitioner. Consequently, the sale letter on which the writ petition was based stood cancelled. The Court found no tenable grounds to grant the reliefs sought by the petitioner. The writ petition was dismissed. The petitioner was granted liberty to avail other appropriate remedies available under the conditions of the sale order if aggrieved by the action of respondent No. 3.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Kedia Trading Company, filed a writ petition seeking directions to respondent No. 3, a co-operative sugar factory, to provide molasses as per a sale order dated 01-11-2019 and to release the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD). The sale order was for 2000 metric tons of molasses at Rs. 4,045 per metric ton (excluding GST). Key conditions included depositing the entire sale amount within 30 days and lifting 25% of the allotted molasses monthly until 31-03-2020. The petitioner alleged that respondent No. 3 stopped loading molasses multiple times and issued a fresh tender for a similar quantity. Respondent No. 3 contended that the petitioner failed to comply with the deposit and monthly lifting conditions. During the pendency of the writ petition, the sale order was cancelled on 12-02-2020.

Key Issues

1. Whether respondent No. 3 should be directed to provide the allotted quantity of molasses to the petitioner as per the sale order dated 01-11-2019, and release the EMD. The petitioner argued that respondent No. 3 was obligated to supply the full quantity by 31-03-2020, despite stopping loading operations and issuing a new tender. The petitioner claimed to have uplifted only 28.400 metric tons and deposited amounts according to the quantity uplifted. Respondent No. 3 argued that the petitioner failed to comply with mandatory conditions of the sale order, specifically the deposit of the entire sale amount within 30 days and the monthly lifting of 25% of the allotted quantity. Respondent No. 3 also highlighted that the sale order was cancelled on 12-02-2020, which the petitioner had not challenged.