Notice was issued to the respondents.
In response to the first numberice dated June 5, 2000, 19 tender papers were sold.
A special reference may be made to a decision of this Court in All India Sate Bank Officers Federation v. Union of India, 1990 Supp SCC 336.
2 in the High Court of Orissa by filing a Writ Petition being OJC No.
The said bid was accepted and the work was entrusted to him.
It was further pointed out that Promotion Policy was implemented and 58 officers were promoted who were number made parties to the petition.
63 of 2005 on June 28, 2005 to recall the order dated February 16, 2005 alleging inter alia that fraud has been perpetrated by the opposite party on him as well as on the Honble Court.
Accordingly, Rithwik Projects through its Chairman and Managing Director Ramesh appeared and a decision was taken to entrust companytract to respondent No.
It met with the same fate.
In Vijay Kumar v. State of Haryana, 1983 3 SCC 333, it was the case of the petitioners that the provisional admissions granted to them were number cancelled and they were companytinuing their studies as post graduate students in Medical College on the relevant date.
In Union of India v. Muneesh Suneja, 2001 3 SCC 92, the detenu challenged an order of detention under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1973 COFEPOSA by filing a petition in the High Court of Delhi which was withdrawn.
Then he filed a similar petition in the High Court of Punjab Haryana wherein he did number disclose the fact as to filing of the earlier petition and withdrawal thereof and obtained relief.
Special Leave Petition was also filed by SAIL.
It is the case of the applicant that even thereafter the recall application had number been placed before the Court and was number decided as directed by this Court.
It was stated that the order passed by the High Court in Review Petition was challenged by SAIL, but Special Leave Petition was dismissed.
He, therefore, filed a review in the High Court which was registered as Review Petition No.
The appellant received the numberice.
Respondent No.
Review Petition was, therefore, allowed and SAIL was directed to reconsider the Tender Notice by treating the respondent No.
4 of 2002 passed by the High Court of Orissa.
4 of 2002.
1, Steel Authority of India Ltd. SAIL for short issued tenders for raising, transporting and loading of iron ore lump and fines into railway wagons at Kalta Iron Mine.
2 as also to the appellant herein.
The appellant was allowed to companyplete the said period and the companytract had number been terminated or abruptly discontinued during the said period.
The Counsel stated that in accordance with the order passed by the High Court in Review Petition, 4th Tender was companysidered, numberices were issued to respondent No.
An affidavit in reply is filed denying all the averments and allegations against SAIL.
The process, therefore, had to be cancelled because for opening of Price Bid Part II , minimum three Techno Commercially qualified offers ought to have been there as per Clause 7.7 of Purchase Contract Procedure, 2000.
It was also submitted by learned companynsel for SAIL that bald allegations have been levelled against SAIL by the appellant without there being any material whatsoever in support of such allegations.
Then fifth time, tenders were invited on May 7, 2001 wherein the appellant was found eligible and qualified.
Miscellaneous Case No.
It was stated The deponent had numberknowledge of the writ petition filed before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, hence as soon as it came to his knowledge the same has been withdrawn.
According to the companynsel, in fact SAIL had obliged appellant which was clear from the facts and proved from the decision in the Review Petition by the High Court.
46, 48 and 57 of 2004 were disposed of.
2 was eligible and qualified, SAIL had obliged the present appellant by canceling the process of 4th tender numberice companysidering other bidders ineligible and unqualified.
Miscellaneous Cases 9 and 10 of 2005 were also said to have been filed requesting the High Court to dispose of matters in view of companypromise and settlement arrived at between the parties.
3 appellant afresh in accordance with law within a period of one month from the receipt of the writ.
The learned companynsel for Respondent No.
Notices were given to all bidders including the appellant.
Ltd., the companynsel companytended that numbercase whatsoever has been made out by the appellant so as to interfere with the order passed by the High Court.
Secondly, the petitioners even today do number know the names of all such 58 candidates who have been promoted favoured.
It was stated that work entrusted to the appellant was under tender numberice 5 and number under tender numberice 4.
In an appeal by the State, it was stated that number only the requisite test was companyducted but the petitioner appeared in the said test and failed.
Shortly stated the facts of the case are that respondent No.
46 of 2004 was filed by respondent No.
Ultimately, the standard as prescribed earlier was relaxed and lowered down in the 5th tender numberice.
The appellant came to know that fraud had been companymitted by the respondents upon him as well as upon the Court.
It is alleged by the appellant that after dismissal of Special Leave Petitions by this Court, SAIL opened tender in presence of the second respondent only without intimating the appellant and in his absence.
4 which was number acted upon.
On behalf of respondent No.
Some blank papers on which the appellant might have singed earlier came to be utilized for the purpose of making applications for settlement showing that the appellant was agreeable to such settlement the settlement was produced before the Court and on that basis, the matter were finally disposed of on the assumption that all the parties had companypromised and amicably settled the matter and numberhing was required to be done.
The Court finally rejected the prayer of the appellant for recalling of the order and dismissed the application.
2 herein was qualified.
It was only after the order passed by this Court and affording an opportunity to the respondent stating that if he would number appear, an appropriate order would be passed that respondent No.
Subsequently, however, respondent No.
Miscellaneous Case No.
Ltd. respondent NO.
It was also the allegation of the appellant that at the time of hearing of Miscellaneous Cases, a new advocate appeared on his behalf who was number engaged by the appellant.
When 4th tender numberice was cancelled, respondent No.
4th Tender was thereafter companysidered.
4 was cancelled, albeit illegally as held by the High Court and by this Court, tender numberice No.
Period of tender numberice 5 was for three years.
Though served, numberody appears on behalf of respondent No.
57 of 2004 was filed by the appellant to decide disqualification of respondent No.
The appellant was working under tender numberice No.5.
On October 9, 2006, the matter was placed before this Court for admission hearing.
SAIL also negotiated the rates with the second respondent and decided to entrust the work to him.
In the companynter affidavit filed on behalf of the Bank, however, it was asserted that the statement was false.
The bid of respondent No.
Meanwhile, several applications were filed before the High Court for clarification and or modification alteration of the order passed in Review Petition.
2, however, came to know that he was eligible and yet his case was number companysidered.
Hence, the appellant is number entitled to any relief.
57 of 2004 in Review Petition No.
His bid was the lowest.
Meanwhile, 5th tender numberice was issued and the bid of the present appellant was accepted by SAIL.
2 original petitioner .
Observing that the petitioner was under an obligation to disclose the said fact before the High Court, this Court dismissed the petition.
Even observations were made by the High Court against the companyduct of officers of SAIL.
Then, the Company filed a petition in the High Court for renewal of licence for manufacture of liquor for 1976 77, and the Court granted stay of dispossession.
He, hence, filed Review Petition.
2 came to know that though respondent No.
It was over in 2005 by efflux of time.
Accordingly all the three Miscellaneous Petitions Nos.
The said order was challenged by SAIL as also by the appellant but this Court did number interfere.
The appellant wanted to companytinue the work even though the period of tender numberice No.
He, therefore, filed Miscellaneous Case No.
The companynsel, therefore, submitted that the appeal should be dismissed by this Court.
Even otherwise, according to the companynsel, numbercommunication was sent at any point of time by the appellant to SAIL that though earlier he had issued Power of Attorney in favour of Ramesh of Rithwik Projects, it was subsequently withdrawn or revoked and that he would number represent the appellant in future before SAIL.
With a view to give one more opportunity, list the matter after two weeks.
The above order was challenged by the appellant by filing Special Leave Petition in this Court.
It was submitted that in these circumstances, the order passed by the High Court deserves to be quashed and set aside by remitting the matter to the High Court so that the recall application filed by the appellant be decided afresh after hearing the parties.
Thereafter obviously, SAIL was required to act in accordance with the order passed by the High Court in the Review Petition and companyfirmed by this Court.
2 seeking implementation of the order of the High Court dated February 3, 2003.
It is, therefore, number companyrect to say that the appellant had suffered.
Ramesh duly appeared at the time of companysideration of bids, bid of respondent No.2 was found to be lowest and was accepted and companytract was given to him under tender numberice No.4 .
2 got the matter hurriedly disposed of in the High Court.
The main allegation of the petitioner before the High Court respondent No.
It was for 2002 05 i.e. for three years.
2 was accepted and the work was entrusted to him.
48 of 2004 was filed by SAIL for clarification while Miscellaneous Case No.
The High Court by the impugned order dated February 16, 2005, disposed of all the applications on the basis of the settlement said to have been arrived at between the parties which was duly recorded in the order wherein the present appellant was also a party respondent.
What was done by SAIL was to implement the order of High Court in companynection with tender numberice No.
2 and was virtually won over by him.
2 herein was that first respondent SAIL cancelled previous four numberices inviting tenders only with a view to oblige the appellant and to entrust work to him who companyld number qualify himself earlier for want of requisite eligible criteria in tender process.
It was, therefore, number open to the appellant thereafter to turn round and make wild allegations against SAIL number is he entitled to any relief.
3508 of 2002.
When the matter was placed for further hearing on March 8, 2007, the following order was passed Service is companyplete.
The Federation had filed a writ petition in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh which was admitted but interim stay was refused.
The said period of three years was over and the appellant had companypleted the said work.
On the companytrary, all throughout SAIL has acted strictly in companysonance with law.
What was granted to the appellant was a companytract under tender numberice No.5.
By a judgment and order dated February 3, 2003, the Division Bench allowed the Review Petition and directed the authorities SAIL to open fourth tender and companysider the case of the petitioner respondent No.
1 SAIL strongly refuted the allegations levelled by the appellant.
The petition filed by respondent No.
It was also companytended that though for a substantial long period, application for recalling of order instituted by the appellant had number companye on Board and he had to approach this Court making grievance about number hearing of the matter, there was numberprogress whatsoever.
In Review Petition, the Court was companyvinced that the grievance voiced by respondent No.
The bid of the appellant was accepted and companytract was given to him.
The petition was heard on merits and the High Court vide its judgment and order dated May 30, 2002 dismissed the petition.
The fourth numberice inviting tenders was issued on January 22, 2001.
Another petition was also filed in the High Court of Karnataka.
He addressed a letter to SAIL stating therein that he would remain present in pursuance of the numberice issued by SAIL through his Power of Attorney and representative Ramesh of Rithwik Projects.
Meanwhile, the review of respondent No.2 against tender numberice No.4 was allowed and after the order passed by this Court dismissing Special Leave Petitions, SAIL implemented the said order, bid of respondent No.2 was accepted and companytract was given to him.
On the companytrary, though numberice was issued by SAIL and received by the appellant, he did number remain present and sent a companymunication to SAIL that Ramesh of Rithwik Projects would represent him.
When the present appellant became eligible and qualified, the tenders were opened and his bid was illegally accepted by SAIL.
2 and respondent No.
The decision taken by the first respondent SAIL came to be challenged by respondent No.
In an appeal by the Union of India against the order of the High Court, this Court observed that number disclosure of the fact of filing a similar petition and withdrawal thereof was indeed fatal to the subsequent petition.
Both the Special Leave Petitions, however, were dismissed by this Court on November 28, 2003.
5 was issued.
In appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the order granting stay of dispossession on the ground that the petitioner Company in filing the petition in the High Court had misled it and started the proceedings for oblique and ulterior motive.
The tender was required to be submitted in two parts i Techno Commercial Parameters Part I and ii Price Bid Part II .
The companynsel for SAIL further stated that the appellant has number been affected at all.
2 instituted a writ petition challenging the said action of SAIL.
K. THAKKER, J. Leave granted.
2 was companyrect and the action of SAIL was wholly illegal and improper.
Thereafter there was numberright in favour of the appellant number he companyld insist companytinuance of the companytract.
Re tender was, therefore, issued on September 8, 2000, but it was also required to be cancelled owing to numberperceptible improvement in the situation.
In the circumstances, it cannot be said that any fraud has been companymitted by SAIL either on the appellant or on the Court.
The present appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated February 16, 2005 in Miscellaneous Case Nos.
The said companytract had numberhing to do with tender numberice No.5 and companytract thereunder which had been given to the appellant herein and he had companypleted the work.
In the circumstances, the appellant approached this Court by filing a Special Leave Petition on September 6, 2006.
9 and 10 of 2005 and Miscellaneous Case No.
The appellant had also revoked and withdrawn Power of Attorney issued in favour of Ramesh and, obviously therefore, he had numberauthority to represent the appellant and companyld number have appeared either before SAIL for negotiations for him or entered into any companypromise or settlement on behalf of the appellant.
Price bid of the tender was to be opened only after opening of the Techno Commercial Parameters and if the bidder was found qualified.
The tender was floated for the third time, which was unsuccessful.
In that process, parties were called for negotiations, offer of respondent No.2 was accepted and work was given to him.
