IN THE HIGH COURT 01%' KARNA'l'AKA AT BANGALORE
DATEI) TIIIS mg IIRI DAY OF FEBRUARY 2O'i.':.C)'»I.
PRESENT J2 V%
'I'III:: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE v GORAIRGICIVIQA II M
AN D
'I'i~iE2 HOE\E'BLE Ix/IR.JuVs'I'ICi;._IéI,r,)'I*._
NANDIHALL1.Sf-INDUR;TALU'}£ _ _
BELLARY DISTRICT' "
BYITSIIRQ-PR'ILTI*0-I2--_V ' ._ _
PKPOUNRQXQ " I I ' l~"i3'}'I'l'IONI:3R
[BY SR1 JA'I'AIUs*I'RII;s
v_I.I\p*iif:g.A: 'A "
OR 1) ' ' '
The petitiiiiiuer if; cé§1l1~i:1;g 'iif:-.V.q1i~e:-j,-I.i"01'1 {he auction
notice déiiedi;O_ \.?.»V'VfvV1V'iV(?}1 is inipugned at
AflD€XLli€VfAN While assaiiing the saici
auctmz-3.LI1o{4i1"i{:a1.iVcji1.O'-£:hé petiiiicinei' is seekiiig fol' the
()\}'€:i' thg waste dumps of iron-ore which is incthided
'in '3_4h{f': 1':=.'(;ii:Oi--i:1c:e1t,i0r1. The pet:iti<mers are c?()m'eric1ii1g
i.i1ai:«..i:h6:'y' eaviiér entiitied to lift: the baiarice quamiity as per
_"i:he% leiiiitr. of intent. which was issued in their favoiir.
J»;
an
2. The brief facts are that the petitioners were the
highest bidders for the sale of iron ore dl11"i1pSfi..bty'.44_§tIh_C
resp0ndent.--c0mpar1y. In this regard. the .
dated 1 1.12.2008 was issued in faxioiir ofthe'-§e.ti'tiei1erz
By the said letter of intent, t.he7-.'qt:_arrtity»._Vof
MTS of iron ore dumps weyli'-'?"4""«1llott:eciV i;<1»_ iii-\$c:i31"'--VVo.f-'the = L'
petitioner. The right;_.ivhichi...wa's_ agreed " 'u.pori,i§ was at
R521} per metric charges
and the other agreed in
the letter :".thV€"'-Hievent of market
fluctuatitm agr'eed'}t0 between them is to
be appiied. silt revision. the said rate
is to be paid byVt.h_eA'p_eti~tLiener and thereafter the waste
tsbe xl"ift'e--d;V In this regard, the sale award
r_d-ziteda. was also entered into. Subsequent
thereto, 'there it appears to have been upward revision of
ratesiiwhieh has led to the present dispute between
it ju"t1'ie._i;:iarties. The correspondence exchanged between
Hthie parties would indicate this aspect of the matter.
t
In
Su.bsequent,ly since the pei.itiorie1's have failed to ag1'ee
for payment of the higher amount, the 1'esp§.).r1id.ei1.i-
company has proeeedecl further 1.0 disposse (_).E"§V__t1i'c§ .
dumps by the impugned n0i:ifieatVii(;)Vn». In?'i'}iai':"v.ievv."ihe
petitioiiers are before this Court.
3. The responcieritsé-..__()11 beifigf 1".-.c')'t"ii1V"'i'<2§i_ have
appeared and filed their ()bjeIei,Vi0:1V stia't;e.111e1'1i'.} Apart
from attempting to ju'st:i'fy ighe-it aei:i<)flni _wi1h regard to
the upward rexxisi011v_-"of.iihe have also
e()ntendeC1~ --t;ih'at. pei:1i,.ion"'1taei4f not maintainable
iI1E1SI}1L1'C'_1"1",';1S' t,h_e're. 'z11fe'rA...s'{:yera1 disputed £"aei:s to be
C0nSi(i€I'€dh"aI1dVi71,11'i,'3T1C1'~""[,1'1(31'£3? aiso an E1I'bi1',I'2Hi()11
:,,ind_icat.eei"r*------i-:1 the tender instructions and
_i.i"ze1fef0r'e,"if all the petitioner has any grievance. the
said__iremrétiyii-_is£ to be availed. With regard to the fixation
Wei' the "1'a_f.7e relating to the iron ore dumps, refereiiee has
V"'bewe»r1':.'made to the formula which is required to be
.V _ag"}p1ied fer the purpose 0% upward revision wh.ere.!:)y the
do
LJX
price prevailirig for the iron ore fines to be taken into
considerat,ion and the1'eafte:' the price has be \i»ro_1'ked
out for the wasi.e clumps. At, this stage,_;é'in--t:e--.__:ih.;e
petitioners are unable to accept: the"
respomierm company has procteededzt7urt,her'"-t:o*iiaetieeA
the riotificatiori. Hence, it is-'v'cr'o.I__1.t.ericle'ci
is justified. it was also the of this
Court their. out of the total' i'cipip.é;4oio00 l\/ITS, the
petitioners 1\/ITS at. the
present. wQri<;e(:l-.;'oifit, at R3429 per metric
ton. T "era-titled to lift the balance
quar1t,it.y_ of '1'~/I_'f["S,:':"whit:h the I'<3Sp()I1C1€3I'll.S are
prepared to"~.per1.11i: the'~pet.it.io1'iers to lift provi(ied the
l V' _said_ ifatbe .AisVvt.agreed' 'to; "
V * light of the rival eoriti.er1t.ior1s, the perusal
ofthe ]:)fc1.]l)'t3':IfS3'V.W()1l1C1 indirratie that in fact. there was a
H_t.encle,r'V iiqotiiicatiori in which the petitioner had
arid the tender itself was floated by
i
'4
(W
iI1(t()rp(3re1l.ing..;" ccrtai1'1 C<m<.1iti0ns in the ir1S1.r1.1(ttir1s
isstleci to the tenderar. In the said i11st,ructio1'1s,'.C1';1_t1str
12 p1'ovides for arbitration. V'5.»'1'1CI1€V€fl' there 'i_:-:§_a1'diS'tptite_. .
between the p211'ti€s. The p€titi()1'_1,C..f»_11ercf1f1"f3*eti'_1*1g"awaltV
of the said clause thereafter 1't':'a}{er1'"qpzuft:
proceedirlgs and has St1bscq:,}:¢'1fltly
the: sale awarded in hfiis fe1vQtz,1.1;:A'2;r1Cifithc;'létttir int:er1t
was also issued. indicated
that the parttigfis,-l;'11ie: a;thtt:r21ti<3r1 clause.
That apart,' along with the
that the mspo11de111.--
(:omp2111i';z'W';1S ci1'sput:cs with c1e1't:ai.n
other exp()rt:31'S 1ie1'z,1t4ingV1-.5 the sale of the iron Ore fines.
regard. a'S"a--:--1r;t19a(:t.1.ea}t' §f:'iSpL1t,e. it would not be appmpriat.e for this
V'-»C0urt "1..<) &-;Xerc:ise:-. _i.t,S disc:reti()1'1 under AI"T.'.i(.'.l('-.' 226 of the
"«(;()I;13f;.it.L1ti0I1 ()fII1dia.
ck
/r
5. The teamed Counsel for the petitioner would
however contend that the orders which are p1*od:ies:_de.at.
Am1ex'ureswR22 to 28 are not the orders w'r'i'i'(i:<l<j.V'~biaiae
"' .'
been passed in a similar cirCu1nst,a1'1ce as»..i..ii'*;o'ived in
the instant case. It. is cont.ende.d thatf?irigthose
there was mutual riegotiatzic-t1ei.._beti2tre.en
the C.'.()I1'[FE1(.'.1' had been it in the
present case. the petrit_i'orier bidder. In
this petition. hehas subsequent
not.ifieat.ion_ right. is being
defeated'; of the matter and
perusingtthéte ;'_n.t.he earlier cases re.fer1"ed
to. t.hough_"=,th'e V fa_.etia,1a'iv..9inat.rix in those were
..tC1ifi?315t,*=11:]'+'itVti"1tis C<)'L1'1v-t.--~--3aad noticed that: there was contract.
be'tWes:n'--v.th:%"p.a1*t:ies. Be that. as it may. Even in the
instant _c:a.S}:f:,'V' though the petitioner herein was a
"s11e(:es'eV:fLiil bidder in the auction. which had been
"--eL;:1d4ii't:t.etl by the respondents. s1.1bseq1.1ent t'heret:.o.
Vb u there is a sale award and also a 1et:t:e1′ of intent,. Even
39.
with regzird to the letter of ii’1t.ent and the sale award.
the p21rt:ies had riegotiated the terms and the rate
re1aI:ir1g to the waste dumps was fixed. F’urther, iri–.._t11e
said letter of il’11l(’31’1t itself, the clause with i”c:g2iifd–t(5′–theV
upward revision of the rate was agreed to \\.ri1’e1_”eii’i’ti1,. ‘\.m;<,
iitdieated that the market. flL,1(?{.L';t1{ii(5i}' wouldhet–_Vt:akeri
into co1'isideratio11 and the rate would be jworked etitg
In a situation of this r1att1re';'e»._WheI1 s'ueh~t-erriis have
been 21gi'ee*d and Wh€i'i__ the p:ai't.ie's.._i'1e2i've a dispute with
regard to fixation of t.heV"i<ateV__ahd–'"'ais'o'jvwit11 regard to
the mam1e'r.eiiij; vvhieh pet.itfi'o1"i'Ver ccmteiids that they
have been iaskcdi t1o"e«.ii'ft,_. dumps from zmotiher site
VVhiCh_W()'L11d~ 'c1VC1(i_("v-:1'1A"3:()V'H'1E¥ tr2.msport.at.ioI1 costs, these
C'<1'1'i fa(:t1ia1"a'spe(?t.s which require evidence and
"th'eV17e'aft.ver_ 'V'C.£f_).1i:(}lL1Si()r1 would have to be reached. In
the first ,plaLj:.efl there is an arhitrat'i(m eiziuse avaiidb_le
" -'~__V"whieh 21135 provides for mutual discussior-1. Even if the
T 'p_e'i:;iti_o}her is of the View that it is not an efiitiacious
.. remedy. it is only by way? of eivii sm't t"h.at: the petitioners
"c
9
(:31) their g1″i€’,V’£1l’}C.C’. l'{3d1’€SS€d. ‘i”‘I’1(%r(-‘.=.f(‘)I'(‘. to iihztt’
<3xt.ent:. vvea are of the View that with regard to the i'2'u._.'.tu.al
dispute. this Court need not adve1't to ft:rt:her"ti'etgxi=I_$59.1'
the me1'itS of the case Si1'1(',('. the Same \?\»-'()-'.:i}C1.I"}~2i\~iE{:E,() 't;¢3"
agitated before the appropriate :1='.ort.m'1.zf1 'Watt()r1iy"=h()}:éi.A
that the present petition is' riot 11iai1its1i1iz;a'bk: v?1Vi1('1 _}t:i1e
dis(:r€ti0r1 VCSt'.€d in US t1hd'e_r A1*tici'c«. 226 E01" the
Constitution of India 1166.51 _1f1L)t. Eieg e'X{éL1=ci'ss3d.
6. Having vcorne t_(_)_ti1.¢ a_b(jve””ctQi’:~éi}1.z«si(m, we have
aE1″eady«””I’1e.tibf?;3d V”fif.}1e”‘-.C011t<éf1't;iii on behalf of the
I’€SpOHCi€Ui’.S p1*epa1’ed to permit the
petit1’o_ne1’s to lift qt1a11t.ity of metric
ratév’of—-Rs.4~29/~ per metric ton so 215:, to
_1″Ii?1k€’ :.u”p_t.hé’qVLIar1tit.y for the amount which in credit.
If the peti’ti0f1ers are willing to lift the same. the
‘n.rfesp0n”c1Ve§-1t: shall permit them and the rate 2211’ RS429
V”-:a.1″ri\«’é;j at for the said pu1’p0s-at wit} remain subject. to the
of the dispt1t.e£hat may be raised by the
we