The High Court · 2025

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 2

4. 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 Local Supplier and the response of the appellimt was sought for rn this regard.

5. 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 ) seeking review of the decision dated 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'

6. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant submitted its bid and also communicated the aforesaid ban order passed by CIL to the Singareni Collieries Company Limited' On 25'07 '2024' the appellant's bid was selected as qualified for the e-reverse auction to be held on 3l'O7 '2024 ' The Singareni Collieries Company Limited issued a Corrigendum dated 28.08.2024, whereby the entire tender process pursuant to the previous tender dated 27 'O3'2O24 was dropped due to administrative reasons. A fresh/revised tender dated 24.Og.2O24 was issued with a specifrc condition i e ' Clause 17.O(b). The appellant, with an apprehension that in the teeth of Clause 17'O(b) of revised tender its bid will not be considered, ltled W'P'No'27029 of 2024' On 30'O9'2024' the learned Singie Judge passed an interim order in the j I t \ 4 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 7. 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 5 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 considered the 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 judicious manner, decision should have been taken. In absence thereof, the decision making process is polluted.

8. Secondly, it is submitted that after the impugned decision by the iearned Single Judge, the Singareni Collieries Company Limited has issued the contract in favour of certain contractors. Since the tender process 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, if the appellant succeeds, it may also be given the contract. i I i ! I i i I I I 6 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: .,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.., 10. 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 -_ 7 andtheimportanceofsupplyingbulkexplosives,apublic interest is involved ald after completion of the tender process and issuance of contracts' it will not be proper to put the clock back or initiate a fresh Proceeding' A documentbearingRefNo:CRP/MP/Sec'13/Lawl2025l444' dated 30.01'2O25, was also supPlied bY the learned contend that nine contracts Additional Advocate General to have been given pursuant to the impugned tender process' Thus, no interference maY be made' 1 1. The learned Senior Counsel for respondent No'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 matters can be made with circumspection' Once the contracts have already been granted' it will not be proper to interfere in the rvrit aPPeals

12. The Parties have confrned their argurnents to the extent indicated above and no other point is pressed' 8

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

74. Clausr: 17 .O of the tender document on which the whole case is founded upon reads thus: "17.0 Banned and delisted Suppliers: been bann ed bv an a) The bidders would give a declaration that ftey have not been banned or de-listed by any Governrler t or j-Govemment agencies or pSUs. It ..Lie. bidder has overnmen tor qua sr (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_ responslve- VG b) 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: Lsi- Govenlment agencies or pSUs. appropriale lcgal opinron wi.ll be obtarned a:t d rcn.icr rrill be pror.r.ss..:r,i( ,-,,.dino .r. However the SCCL manaqement resenes ri,g.rigir;- to .,;k" aI] ate decision in above cases- " iEmphasis Sirpphr d)

15. 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 decision in the cases ol tc tak apF,i-o priate delistingl banning. Sil c: \ I o 1 ! I I i banning was admittedly disclosed, the said right to take appropriate decision should have been exercised' In paragraph 14 of the counter liled before the learned Single Judge in W.P.No 287O6 of 2024 as extracted above' it is shown that a decision has been taken to disqualify the appellant.

16. A careful reading of Clause 17 'O reproduced hereinabove sho'*'s that if bidder has been banned by at'y other body and has disclosed this fact clearly in his bid' as a rule of thumb, SCCL management will not disqualify him' The SCCL management reserves right to take appropriate decision in such eventuality. The language employed in the aforesaid ciause shows that it enables the SCCL management to take an appropriate decision in such cases where disclosure of barning is there' The decision taken by SCCL management in 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 undertake the entire exercise afresh' The Singareni Collieries Company Limited is serving public l0 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.

17. 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 18 In Shiv Shankar Dal Mills v. State of Haryanar, the Apex Court held as under: "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. F-mp l: a sis S,1;..o,i.i I ' 1usol z scc ,r:rz I I a ! t I t I I I ! I i I i i I EIEE];1.-]. t

19. In Chandra Singh v. State of Rajasthan2, the Apex Court held as under: '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 Court and consequently this Court while exercising their extraordinary juriscliction under Articlc 226 or 32 of the Constitution of India mav not strike down an illegal order althoush it would be lawful to do so. In a given case. the IIiEh Court or this Court mav refuse to extend the benefit of a discret ionarv relief to the applicant 44 ..This Court in Brii Nlohan Gupta case I (20031 2 2OO3 SCC (L&S) 174t has also refused to SCC 39O exercise its discrctionan' iurisdiction in lavour of the appellants atthor-rgh the order of the Hieh Court was found liable to l)c set aside beinq not ln accordance with law." {Emphasrs Supplied)

20. In Master Marine Services (Pl ttd. v' Metclfe & Hodgkinson (Pl Ltd.3, the Apex Court opined as under: "T?re court should alr'''ays keep the largcr public interest in mind in order- to clecrde g'hether its inten'ention is called for or rrot. O nl-r- \-hen tt comes to a conclusion ' (2oog) 6 scc sas ' (2005) 6 scc ll8 thzrt overwhelming public i the ( ourt shourd interfer"., "r""a requires .rteJierirrc,-

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

22. The writ appeals However, the point raised b to be decided in an order as to (Dsts. are accorcliitgl,v dis missed. y the appella-r-r r u.ill r-en:.ln open appropriate case. There shall be no Interlo,:utory appiications, if arly pendine. shrrl stand closed i To, //rRuEcopy// ^ \.o:B',1?ttf#AYtE i \ "'l' sEcrro" orr,.." I 1 2 3 one CC to SRr TARUN G. REDDy Advo"rt" 1oJ{c1 One CC to Ms D.VENKATA PADMAJA Advocate [opUC] Two CCs to Additional AD\ rerangana ar Hycierabad. rd8?f" GENERAL, High courr for t/re state of Two CD Copies 4 KKS Ils i I , ! l I I t E i I I I I f I r l I I t z! : I i i i i : i ; : i I I I I I I t I I i t t i i I i j I I i I HIGH COURT DATED:1 310212025 COMMON JUDGMENT WA.Nos.l16 AND 117 of 2025 19 !i Ir 1i u ) !) ( L',I 01 l'lI 2025 * t,-::r'r I eC, I C DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEALS WITHOUT COSTS T .rr(d $,v