In this background, the writ petition was allowed and SAIL was directed to refund the entire amount within four weeks from the date of the order.
The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests by letter dated March 31, 2010, declined to grant such permission for the removal of 1.00 lakh tons of iron ore fines by plying vehicles.
Being aggrieved, the appellant filed the present appeal before this Court.
It would be evident from the sale order dated March 16, 2007 that the price was agreed upon at pic1,132/ per metric ton plus VAT of 4 aggregating to pic11,32,00,000/ plus VAT of 4.
The facts of the case reveal that on February 19, 2007, Steel Authority of India for short SAIL had advertised for E auction of 1.00 lakh metric tons of iron ore fines from Kemmanagundi mines.
On May 26, 2010, SAIL informed the respondent that the companytract was revalidated by letter dated July 27, 2009 till November 26, 2009 for a period of four months companymencing from July 27, 2009 and that the said companytract had expired on the lapse of the said period.
Out of the said amount, pic58.86 lakhs being 5 of the total sale value was retained as Security Deposit and a sum of pic117.74 lakhs was kept for adjustment along with the final instalment.
The appellant duly paid pic176 lakhs being 15 of the total sale value on March 15, 2007.
The balance payment was to be made in two monthly instalments with the grace period of 30 days with interest at the rate of 6 per annum.
The entire material was to be lifted within four months from the date of the sale order.
It is also number in dispute that on November 9, 2009, SAIL had addressed a letter to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests Wildlife and Chief Wildlife Warden, Karnataka, for renewal of permission granted for lifting and transporting iron ore fines through Bhadra Wildlife Sanctuary.
Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J. Leave granted.
This appeal has been filed against the order dated February 21, 2012 passed by the High Court of Karnataka in W.P. No.38280/2011.
On March 13, 2007, auction was held and respondent No.1 was declared as the successful tenderer.
