108 DATED 9.12.2010 IS ARBITRARY AND MALAFIDE.
it was more than Rs.
108, the High Court found that the challenge to the said resolution was predicated on the following premise With the issuance of LOI to the successful highest bidder, a companycluded companytract was arrived at between the parties and, therefore, it was number permissible for the Port Trust to terminate the tender process thereafter.
Pending such decision, the High Court permitted the respondent to lift up to 20,000 quintals of molasses.
However, this occurred more than 5 years after the NIT dated 12.3.2005 was floated.
The annual rent in respect of these plots was fixed at a numberinal rate of Re.
The companyrt numbered that the original tender premium in the year 2005 was fixed on Rs.
It is a matter of record that for more than 5 years the clearance had number been granted and came to be granted only on 16.8.2010.
By that time significant change had occurred from the date of the issuance of the NIT in March, 2005.
By an interim order, the High Court directed the State Government to decide the respondents claim after hearing the respondent.
1/ per plot.
whereas fresh tender premium, after the cancellation of the earlier tender process was fixed at Rs.
3,200/ per sq.
14, 15 and 17.
However, at the same time it was also made clear that any specific clearance like safety, pollution companytrol etc.
In so far as the appellant is companycerned in respect of all the three plots bearing No.
was to be obtained by the individual lessee s .
Since these informations were number supplied by the petitioner, another letter was issued by the respondent Trust on 13.5.2008 reiterating the same request to provide the said information.
However, for one reason or the other, this permission clearance was number forthcoming.
Therefore, the High Court quashed the order of the Secretary Sugar and directed that the respondent should be allowed to lift 85,000 quintals of molasses less the quantity already lifted.
The Gandhidham Chamber of Commerce and Industry was informed about this road block by the Port Trust in response to its representation, wherein the Port Trust also requested the said Chamber of Commerce and Industry to use its good office with the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Union of India for early clearance of CRZ permission.
The respondent amended its writ petition accordingly.
108 of the Port Trust by preferring Writ Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the High Court of Gujarat.
mtrs.,
286 of 2011 filed by M s. Nikhil Adhesives Ltd. was dismissed by the High Court vide detailed reasoned judgment dated 4.2.2011.
When these matters came up for hearing 14.3.2014 other three petitioners sought permission to withdraw their Special Leave Petitions which were accordingly dismissed as withdrawn on 14.3.2014.
After receiving bids and evaluating technical as well as price bids respectively, the Tender Committee had recommended the cases for allotment of plots.
This decision of the Port Trust was companyveyed to the appellant vide letter dated 9.12.2010.
108, deciding to cancel the tender process started in the year 2005.
the same was to be obtained by the appellant.
612/ per sq.
the Board of Trustees of Kandla Port Trust hereinafter referred to as the Port Trust has number of plots, in and around Kandla Port, which are of different sizes.
8,000/ per sq.
All these four petitions were listed and were taken together for hearing from time to time.
During the hearing, certain disputed facts cropped up.
As per the prescribed procedure in such matters, the Port Trust held pre bid meeting on 21.4.2005 wherein the terms of NIT of the bidders were explained and querries answered.
Recommendations were placed before the Board of Trustees in its meeting held on 8.12.2005.
Though in the NIT premium was fixed on Rs.
14, 15 and 17 were given for a premium of Rs.
Aggrieved by the interim order of the High Court to supply 20,000 quintals of molasses to the respondent, the appellants approached the Supreme Court which in turn, set aside that interim order and permitted the respondent to amend the writ petition to challenge the order of the Secretary Sugar .
All these affected persons challenged the validity of Resolution No.
The High Court called the managers of two of the sugar mills and put some questions to them and recorded their statements.
The Secretary, Cane Development and Sugar Industries Secretary Sugar therefore, stayed the operation of ACCs order.
Thereafter, price bids were opened on 30.8.2005.
The Port Trust applied to the Ministry of Environment, Government of India for such permission.
The appellant submitted its bid in respect of Plot Nos.
It is more than obvious that larger public interest demanded fresh tender process in order to receive maximum amount as the premium of Rs.
This was also reiterated vide companymunication dated 25.5.2005.
Bid of the appellant was found to be technically qualified.
ii Proposed activity type of Cargos to be stored Proposed storage capacity approximate quantum of the liquid companymodity, size etc.
For this purpose the Kandla Port Trust issued numberice inviting tenders dated 12.3.2005.
The tenders were to be submitted to the ACC in accordance with the companyditions specified in the tender numberice.
In this backdrop the Port Trust wanted to take a decision as to whether it companyld go for fresh tenders.
However, the bidders were required to submit the price bid in the form of premium in respect of the companycerned plots for which they intended to bid.
It was followed by companymunication dated 7.1.2006 to the appellant in the form of Letter of Intent LOI , inter alia stating that the leasehold rights in respect of Plot Nos.
Similar letters were written to other tenderers as well who were issued similar LOIs.
This prolonged time lag resulted in taking decision by the Board of Trustees on 9.12.2010, in the form of Resolution No.
Around that time, the State Government received several reports that the prevailing price of molasses was much higher.
3 lakhs per plot.
3,150/ per sq.
respectively.
14, 15 and 17, LOI was issued after the Board agreed to accept the recommendations of the Tender Committee in its meeting held on 8.12.2005.
612/ per sq.
3,000/ and odd of the appellant which were found to be highest, was far below the marked rate.
The proceedings in regard to the tenders received culminated in an order from the ACC permitting the respondent to lift 85,000 quintals of molasses from the five sugar mills at a price of Rs.
Few facts, leading to this impugned Resolution, which need to be recapitulated are the following Tenders for allotment of plots on leasehold basis were floated on 12.3.2005.
The petitioner was specifically informed that the said information was urgently required to be furnished to the NIOT so that the same would enable the said Institute to submit the report as early as possible for obtaining CRZ clearance in the matter.
The Port Trust took a decision, sometime in the year 2005, to allot these plots on leasehold basis for a period of 30 years for the purpose of enabling the allottees thereof to put up the companystruction of liquid storage tanks.
The technical bids of the bidders, including that of the appellant, were opened on 11.8.2005.
Another SCA NO.
Since numbernew issue is raised and the factual matrix admittedly remains the same, present petition is summarily dismissed for the reasons discussed in detail in CAV judgment dated 4.2.2011 in Special Civil Application No.
The said judgment of the High Court was challenged in these appeals.
The respondent then approached the High Court by a writ petition seeking a direction for companytinuance of supply of the entire quantity of 85,000 quintals of molasses to it.
It appears that CRZ clearance was ultimately received on 16.8.2010.
One more pre bid meeting was held on 20.6.2005 and, thereafter the last date of submitting the tender was also postponed and subsequently fixed as 11.8.2005.
Consequently he cancelled the same.
The bids were to accompany the earnest money deposit of Rs.
The bidders were also informed that since these plots fall under Coastal Regulatory Zone CRZ , requisite permission from the companypetent authority under CRZ was required which would be obtained by the Kandla Port Trust.
These bids were scrutinised by the Tender Committee of the Port Trust.
3 lakhs by way of EMD in each case.
612/ per sq.
286 of 2011 and 1328 of 2011 have been decided by this Court by CAV judgment dated 4.2.2011 and order dated 7.2.2011 respectively.
1328 of 2011 filed by IMC Limited was also dismissed by detailed reasoned order on 7.2.2011.
1877 of 2011 came up before the same Bench of the High Court on 10.2.2011, following the decision in the said two Writ Petitions the Court dismissed the petition of the appellant as well with one paragraph order, which reads as follows Identical petitions for the same purpose and with the same prayer being Special Civil Application Nos.
in 2010.
The petitioner was also informed that the said M s. NIOT, Chennai had suggested to provide following information for incorporation of the same in EIA Studies I Approximate estimation for the activity.
One such Writ Petition being Special Civil Application No.
The basic value of this premium was fixed at Rs.
This companymunication further mentioned that the formal letter will be issued to the appellant after the receipt of CRZ clearance in general.
Even when Ghandhidham Chamber of Commerce and Industry wrote to the Port Trust, on behalf of these allottees who were issued LOIs and were waiting for formal letter of allotment, in reply the Port Trust had requested the said Chamber of Commerce and Industry to also use its good offices with the Ministry of Environment and Forests for early clearance of CRZ permission.
286 of 2011.
and 3,120 per sq.
The letter of allotment to the various successful bidders went into limbo thereafter, presumably awaiting CRZ clearance.
However, in the LOI it was made clear that formal letter of allotment will be issued after receiving the CRZ clearance in general and if any further CRZ clearance was required for installation, safety, pollution etc.
127 per quintal.
K. SIKRI, J. Leave granted.
After hearing the respondent, the Secretary Sugar held that there was numbervalid companytract for supply of molasses to the first respondent and that, therefore, the allotment letter issued by the ACC was without any authority.
Appellant has challenged the aforesaid order in the present appeal.
The factual matrix which needs to be taken numbere of, for the purpose of deciding the present appeal, unfolds as under Respondent No.
Further, even when total premium amount to be paid by the appellant was to the tune of several crores for each plot at which LOI was issued in the year 2006, the appellant had paid only Rs.
The prices of the property had taken quantum jump.
2 herein, viz.,
mtr originally fixed and even the quotation of Rs.
In this letter it was also stated that the successful bidder was required to pay the premium within a period of 3 months from the issuance of formal letter of allotment or CRZ clearance whichever was earlier.
When the petition of the appellant herein i.e. SCA No.
612/ per sq.
