Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 400 (ORI)

Suvendu Pradhan v. State of Orissa

2007-05-18

I.M.QUDDUSI, SANJU PANDA

body2007
JUDGMENT I. M. QUDDUSI, J. : These are two writ petitions filed by the petitioners claiming to be agents of the Industrial Develop¬ment Corporation of Orissa Limited (in short ‘IDCOL’), which is an undertaking of the Government of Orissa. The petitioners in both the writ petitions were appointed as agents by the IDCOL for trading of unserviceable scrap materials, equipment, machineries and surplus materials for disposal of Water Resources Department and other Government agencies and the area of operation was confined to the Upper Mahanadi basin. The petitioner of writ petition bearing number W.P.(C) No.14752 of 2006, namely, Suvendu Pradhan, Proprietor of M/s. Pradhan Engineers and Enterprisers, has prayed for a direction to the IDCOL to take all steps for disposal of the unserviceable scrap materials of copper cable for which the tender had been finalized in his favour. The petitioner of writ petition number W.P.(C) No.16813 of 2006 has also sought a direction to IDCOL to issue orders to the petitioner to deposit the required amount for removing the scrap materials and in case of its failure to do so, one of the opposite parties amongst opposite party Nos.1 to 3, i.e., the State of Orissa, Chief Engineer, Mechanical, Office of Engineer-in-Chief, Water Re¬sources and Executive Engineer, Main Dam Division, be directed to issue orders directly to the petitioner to deposit the required amount as per the approved rate to lift the scrap materials in question. 2. The brief facts of the case are that IDCOL in the capacity of contractor used to take contracts for disposal of unserviceable scrap materials including copper cables pertaining to main Dam Division, Burla. However, under agreement, it used to appoint agents for trading of the unserviceable scrap materials keeping some margin money of the rate with it. IDCOL in the in¬stant matter offered Rs.84/- per kg. for copper cable excluding all taxes and duties which was accepted by Government vide their letter dated 22.12.2004. 3. Against the acceptance of the offer of the IDCOL by the State Government, one Raj Kishore Agarwalla, Proprietor of a firm, namely, Zoom Enterprisers filed a writ petition in this Court registered as W.P.(C) No.803 of 2005 claiming to be the registered selling agent of Orissa Small Industries Corporation (in short ‘OSIC’) which deals with scrap business. 3. Against the acceptance of the offer of the IDCOL by the State Government, one Raj Kishore Agarwalla, Proprietor of a firm, namely, Zoom Enterprisers filed a writ petition in this Court registered as W.P.(C) No.803 of 2005 claiming to be the registered selling agent of Orissa Small Industries Corporation (in short ‘OSIC’) which deals with scrap business. He had alleged in the writ petition that after the final acceptance of the offer of the IDCOL at the rate of Rs.84/- per Kg. at the level of the Chief Minister, OSIC submitted a fresh offer of Rs.85/- per Kg. But the same was not considered pursuant to the notes given in the Department that the offer was made belatedly after order was passed by the Government and if the said order was entertained it would affect the sanctity of the Government order. That writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 20.1.2005, inter alia, with the direction that the offer of the OSIC at the rate of Rs.85/- will be considered by the Government at the highest level, namely, the Chief Minister of Orissa. 4. Against the aforesaid order dated 20.1.2005, the peti¬tioner of writ petition W.P.(C) No.16813 of 2006, namely,Bishnu Prasad Das filed a S.L.P. in the Hon’ble apex Court registered as S.L.P.(C) No. 5959(C) of 2005. The Hon’ble Apex Court granted leave to appeal and the said S.L.P. was registered as Civil Appeal No.2402 of 2006 and was disposed of vide order dated 1.5.2006 holding that the order of the High Court is indefensible on more than one counts. Firstly, IDCOL was not a party in the writ petition. Similar was the position vis-a-vis the appellant who undisputedly is the agent of IDCOL. The writ petition was filed on 18.1.2005 and merely two days thereafter the matter was finally disposed of even without issuing notice to the par¬ties. Firstly, IDCOL was not a party in the writ petition. Similar was the position vis-a-vis the appellant who undisputedly is the agent of IDCOL. The writ petition was filed on 18.1.2005 and merely two days thereafter the matter was finally disposed of even without issuing notice to the par¬ties. The High Court interfered in a contractual matter without hearing the party whose offer had been accepted and the High Court should not have been entertained the writ petition because the successful bidder was not impleaded and thus the above men¬tioned order of the High Court was set aside and the matter was remitted to this Court for fresh disposal but with the condition that the petitioner of that writ petition, namely, Raj Kishore Agarwalla should implead IDCOL and the appellant before the Hon’¬ble apex Court as parties within a period of three weeks and if the same is not done, the writ petition would be dismissed. The writ petitioner of that writ petition, namely, Raj Kishore Agar¬walla did not implead IDCOL as well as the petitioner of W.P.(C) No.16813 of 2006 Bishnu Prasad Das as opposite parties within three weeks from 1.5.2006 and, as such, the writ petition was dismissed by the Division Bench presided over by Hon’ble the Chief Justice by order dated 13.9.2006. Thereafter W.P.(C) No.14752 of 2006 was filed by Suvendu Pradhan on 7.11.2006 and W.P.(C) No.16813 of 2006 was filed by Bishnu Prasad Das on 18.12.2006. 5. It is necessary to mention here that Suvendu Pradhan, the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.14752 of 2006 requested IDCOL vide letter dated 17.8.2005 to refund his security deposit of Rs.5 lakhs as he did not want to continue as agent of IDCOL and thereafter he received back his security money on 15.10.2006 and therefore he no more remains as the agent of IDCOL. Therefore, no relief can be granted to him since he is no more an agent of IDCOL. 6. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite party Nos.2 and 3, i.e., the Chief Engineer, Mechanical and the Executive Engineer, Main Dam Division, sworn to by the Executive Engineer, Main Dam Division, in which it has been stated that the General Manager (Commerce) of IDCOL vide his letter dated 6.12.2006 has intimated opposite party No.3 that M/s. IDCOL has exit the business and discontinued the appointment of agents. A copy of that letter has been annexed as Annexure-A/3, which is reproduced as under : “A. K. Mishra, General Manager (Com). Ref No. COM-MKT-808/5196 Date 06.12.2006. To The Executive Engineer, Main Dam Division, Burla, Sambalpur. Sub : Lifting of 16,625.9 Kg. of Copper Cables from your Divi¬sion. Dear Sir, Please refer to your letter No.8946 dated 24.10.2006 and subsequent letter No.9232 dated 30.10.2006 requesting IDCOL to lift the material by 10th of November, 2006 by making necessary financial arrangement. In this context, we would like to inform you that IDCOL had created a net-work of agents for lifting and disposal of the scrap material allotted to them from time to time. When Water Resources Department informed IDCOL vide their letter No.9368 dated 29.11.2004 that the unserviceable scrap material and equip¬ments of W.R. Department henceforth shall be disposed off through open tender, IDCOL exit the business and discontinued the ap¬pointment of the agents. In accordance with the decision of our Department, you may dispose of the scrap material by open auction notwithstanding our any old offer pending with you. All such offers are hereby with¬drawn. Thanking you, Yours faithfully For the I.D.C. of Orissa Limited. Sd. GENERAL MANAGER (COM)” 7. Since the petitioners were claiming themselves to be the agents of IDCOL, they cannot have any say independently. The contract in question was between the State and M/s. IDCOL. If M/s. IDCOL does not want to continue the contract, the petition¬ers cannot claim their rights to deposit the amount and get the scrap under the contract of IDCOL. M/s. IDCOL has not only exit the business of scrap transaction but also discontinued the appointment of agents and, therefore, the petitioners do not have any locus standi. 8. In view of the facts and circumstances as discussed above, the petitioners are not entitled to get the relief sought for by them in the writ petitions. Therefore, both the writ petitions are dismissed. All inter¬im orders passed in these cases stand vacated. There shall be no order as to cost. SANJU PANDA, J. I agree. Petitions dismissed.