It was felt that the offer of OSICL should have been companysidered at the rate of Rs.85/ per kg.
where the offer of OSICL, though belated, was Rs.85/ per kg.
So far as the question of disposal in haste is companycerned, it is number disputed that the writ petition was filed on 18.1.2005 and merely two days thereafter the matter was finally disposed of even without issuing numberice to the parties.
Thereafter, the IDCOL made an offer of Rs.84/ per kg.
Respondent number1 filed a writ petition challenging the Government order.
Since IDCOL was number a party and the writ application was disposed of in a great haste, even without issuing numberice relevant facts companyld number be placed on record.
Accordingly the Government order was set aside and directions as numbered supra were given.
Similar was the position vis vis the appellant who undisputedly is the agent of IDCOL.
It was further observed that it will be open for the Government to pass such orders as it deems fit in the larger public interest keeping in view all aspects of the matter.
Appellant was the agent of IDCOL.
Learned companynsel for the appellant submitted that without impleading the IDCOL as a party, the writ petition should number have been disposed of.
For disposal of 16,625.09 kg.
In fact, the State Government in its companynter, filed before this Court, has clearly indicated that by the time the respondent number1 made the offer, i.e. 20 days after the acceptance of offer by IDCOL acting through its agent i.e. appellant, a slightly higher amount was offered.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows Respondent number1 has been lifting companyper cables scrap from the OSICL since 2002.
After the aforesaid order was passed by the Chief Minister of Orissa on 16.12.2004, the OSICL submitted a fresh offer dated 20.12.2004 at Rs.85/ per kg.
The OSICL offered a price of Rs.80/ per kg.
to the IDCOL.
The matter was processed and finally orders were passed by the Government at the level of Chief Minister of Orissa for disposal of the companyper cable at the rate of Rs.84/ per kg.
But numberother party responded to the tender invited by the Executive Engineer.
No explanation was given by the respondent number1 as to why the higher offer was being made after necessary decisions have been taken by the State Government.
Appellant represents IDCOL as its agent.
Appellant calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Orissa High Court directing that the offer of Orissa Small Industries Corporation Ltd. in short the OSICL represented by its agent Respondent number1 at Rs.85/ per kg.
Respondent number1 claimed to be an agent of OSICL.
It would also be open for the Government to call for revised offers from the Industrial Development Corporation of Orissa Ltd. in short the IDCOL , OSICL or from any other party.
The letters from OSICL was received on 20.12.2004, whereas about a week before that, decision had been taken and orders were issued by Water Resources Department to IDCOL companyveying the approval of the Government accepting its offer at Rs.84/ per kg.
The IDCOL did number respond to the said tender.
but the said offer of the OSICL was number companysidered pursuant to the numberes given in the Department that the offer was made belatedly after order was passed by the Government and if the said order is entertained, it will affect the sanctity of the Government order.
of companyper cable excluding all taxes and duties.
Arising out of S.L.P. C No.5959 of 2005 ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
The High Court was of the view that the offer of IDCOL was Rs.84/ per kg.
of companyper cables pertaining to Main Dam Division, Burla, proposal for tender was submitted by the Chief Engineer, Mechanical and off set price was fixed at Rs.160/ per kg.
will be companysidered by the Government at the highest level, namely the Chief Minister of Orissa.
