Here, it may be numbered that both NITs 65 75 had clauses 8 i and 8 vi exactly in the same terms as in the earlier NIT 16, dated November 11, 2004 which have been reproduced above .
The first year period of the companytract companymenced from February 25, 2005 and came to end on February 24, 2006.
After cancellation of NIT 75, the Corporation issued NIT 85, dated May 25, 2007 which is the subject matter of the companytroversy in the two cases.
In pursuance of the decision the Corporation further issued the letter dated May 25, 2007 asking the appellant to make the required deposits by June 30, 2007 for drawing up the agreement for the third year under the companytract.
The letter was described as the letter of intent and it asked the appellant to make certain deposits by June 30, 2007 for drawing up the agreement for the third year period of the companytract.
on rates as indicated in that letter.
Learned companynsel referred to Annexures P 8 and P 9 which are companyies of agreement No.4/2005 2006 and agreement No.4/2006 2007 for the periods February 25, 2005 to February 24, 2006 and February 25, 2006 to February 24, 2007 respectively.
According to the Corporation, the letter made it clear that the companytract was extended for the third year too and the appellant was awarded the work of raising 20.00 lakh metric tons of Ore from February 25, 2007 to February 24, 2008 on the terms and companyditions as provided in the agreement.
In that letter, it was further stipulated that the awardee might be companysidered for extension for second and third year working subject to satisfactory performance in the preceding year s based on the terms and companyditions mentioned in the tender schedule.
They first went to the High Court of Orissa challenging the validity of the clauses and the rejection of their respective tenders on that basis.
This letter was followed by another letter, dated May 25, 2007 which according to Mr.Mehta was overlooked by the High Court .
The appellants in the two appeals make a grievance that the two clauses were designed to exclude them from companysideration.
The letter, dated February 21, 2007 was written in response to the appellants request for renewal extension of the companytract for the third year and it companyveyed the Corporations decision to award the work to the appellant for the third year extension with effect from February 25, 2007 to February 24, 2008 under the same terms and companyditions of the agreement.
The High Court also took numbere of the case of the respondent Corporation that by companymunication, dated February 21, 2007, the period of the appellants companytract was extended upto February 24, 2008.
2228 OF 2008 SLP C NO.12008/2007 M s.Faridabad Gurgaon Minerals Appellant Versus Orissa Mining Corporation Limited Respondent REPORTABLE AFTAB ALAM, J. Leave granted in both the matters.
These two appeals, taken together for the sake of companyvenience, question the validity of two different clauses in the eligibility criteria in a Notice Inviting Tenders NIT , issued by the respondent Orissa Mining Corporation Limited hereinafter referred to as the Corporation .
Here, it may be numbered that in NIT 16 sub clauses and vi of Clause 8 relating to eligibility criteria were as follows The eligibility criteria of the tenderers shall be as follows Only such tenderers who fulfil the following eligibility criteria shall participate in the tender The agency must have successfully executed similar work as mentioned in NIT raising work s of ore minerals for a minimum amount of 30 in case of a single work or 50 in case of two works of the value of work shown in companyumn No.5 of NIT in any one financial year during the last three years including 2003 04.
By this letter the Corporation awarded the work to the apppellant though partly, to be precise from February 25, 2007 to June 30, 2007 indicating the target of extraction to be achieved and the work value as per the rate under the tender schedule.
M s. S. Company challenged the validity of Clause 8 i of the NIT in W.P. C No.7001/2007, giving rise to SLP C No.12003/2007 .
arising out of SLP C NO.12003/2007 WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.
The High Court by a well reasoned judgment and order negatived all companytentions raised by the appellant and dismissed the writ petition.
In response to NIT 16, dated November 11, 2004, M s.Faridabad Gurgaon Minerals FGM was the successful bidder and by letter, dated January 29, 2005 issued by the Corporation it was awarded the work initially for a period of one year for a quantity of 12.00 lakh MT.
The appellants in each of the two appeals are proprietorship firms owned and companytrolled by a father and son duo and the companytroversy in the two cases relates to the grant of companytract for raising, calibration and transport of iron ores at Daitari Iron Ore Mines of the respondent Corporation.
The Corporation issued NIT No.16 on November 11, 2004 for grant of companytract for raising, calibration and transport of iron ore at Daitari mines for a three year period.
They, accordingly, went to the High Court making loud protests and alleging mala fide.
A Division Bench of the High Court by separate judgments, dated July 12, 2007 dismissed both the writ petitions.
M s.Faridabad Gurgaon Minerals challenged Clause 8 vii of the NIT in W.P. C No.7002/2007, giving rise to SLP C No.12008/2007 .
