LexK.D. SHARMA versus STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 10 S.C.R. 454 ~ .... A K.D. SHARMA ,,. v. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 4270 of 2008) B JULY 9, 2008 [C.K. THAKKER AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] Equity - Suppression of material facts - In the writ court - Effect ot-Held: Under writ jurisdiction which isprerogative, c equitable, discretionary and extraordinary jurisdiction, con- cealment of material facts, would amount to manipulation and misrepresentation - Prerogative remedy is not a matter of course - Such petition liable to be dismissed at the threshold without considering the merits of the case - Such applicant is D required to be dealt with for contempt of court for abusing the ,_ process of court - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 32 and 226. Contract - Tender notice - Cancellation of four tender notices - Grant of contract under fifth tender notice - One of E the bidders challenging grant of contract under fifth tender notice - Challenge rejected - Review petition by the bidder as his bid was not considered - High Court directing the au- thorities to consider the bidder under fourth tender notice - Grant of contract to the bidder - Contractor under fifth tender F notice challenging the grant of contract - Application for dis- ..,, posal of matter under compromise allowed by High Court - Contractor under fifth tender notice denying to have entered any compromise and alleging fraud - Held: In the facts of the case no fraud played as the contractor actually was party to G the compromise - The contract given under fifth· tender notice having expired, contractor not entitled to contract under fourth tender notice. 1 Words and Phrases - "Fraud" - Meaning of H 454 K.D. SHARMA v. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA 455 LTD. & ORS. Respondef)t No. 1 Steel Authority of India (SAIL) is- A sued tender for raising, transporting etc. of iron ore. 1ln Part I of the tender (Techno-Commercial Parameters) only one bidder i.e. respondent No. 2 was qualified. Therefore Part II of the tender (Price Bid) was not opened becau$e minimum three techno-commercially qualified offers were B required for opening the same and hence the tender pro- cess was cancelled. Thereafter 2nd, 3rd and 4th tenders were floated, but the same were unsuccessful. The ten- der was floated for the fifth time, where under work wa's entrusted to. the appellant for a period of 3 years. Resporl- c dent No. 2 filed a writ petition challengfng the decision of respondent No. 1 in granting the work to the appellant alleging that the bid of the appellant was illegally accepted and respondent No. 1 had cancelled the previous tenders in order to oblige the appellant and entrust work to th~ 0 appellant. The petition was dismissed by High Court. Re~ spondent No. 2 on coming to know that despite being eli· gible his case was not considered, filed a review 'Petition: The High Court directed respondent No. 1 to open the fourth tender and consider the case of respondent No. 2 and the appellant afresh. The order was unsuccessfully E challenged upto Supreme Court. Thereafter respondent No. 1 opened the tender and decided to entrust the work to respondent No. 2. Appellant filed application praying to. decide disqualification of respon.dent No. 2 . Two applica- tions were also filed requesting the court to dispose of the F matters in view of compromise and settlement arrived at between the parties. High Court disposed of all the appli- ' cations on the basis of the settlement. Appellant filed an application alleging that fraud has been committed by the · respondents on him as well as on the Court. The applica- G ~ tion was rejected by High Court. Hence the present appeal. ' Appellant contended that fraud had been committed in as much as the appellant had never entered into any settlement or compromise. H 456 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R. \.. "~ .. r A Respondent No. 1 contended that compromise had been entered into in the presence of the Power of Attor- ney/representative of the appellant duly authorised by the appellant; and that the work entrusted to the appellant was under fifth tender notice for a period of three years and not B under tender notice No. 4 and thus on expiry of period of three years there was no right in favour of the appellant. Dismissing the appeal, the Court \ HELD:1.1 The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court un- c der Article 32 and of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.