Anda di halaman 1dari 6

1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA


CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SLP (CIVIL) No. 7894 OF 2015

IN THE MATTER OF:


Dr. Nagendra Rai

.Petitioner
Versus

Howrah Improvement Trust & Ors.

Respondent

LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS


20.04.2001

The Howrah Improvement Trust (the Respondent No.1


herein)

issued

notice

inviting

tenders

for

sale

of

excess/surplus land ad-measuring 4 cottahs, 5 chittaks, 9


sq ft = 289.298 sq mts at Premises No. 147, Salkia School
Road, P.S Golabari, Howrah 711101.
The Respondent No.1, however after submission of tenders,
unilaterally extended the date of submission of tenders from
30.04.2001 to 14.05.2001.
14.05.2001

The Petitioner herein filed a Writ Petition being AST No. 792
of 2001 before the Honble Calcutta High Court challenging
the aforesaid unilateral extension of time.

14.05.2001

The Learned Single Judge of the Honble Calcutta High Court


vide an Order quashed the notice inviting tenders inter-alia
observing that such unilateral extension of time could not be
sustained in the eyes of law and directed the Respondent
No.1 to issue a fresh notice inviting tenders.

17.05.2001

Pursuant

to

Order

of

the

Honble

High

Court,

the

Respondent No.1 issued a fresh notice inviting tenders and


fixed the date for submission of forms for 04.06.2001 at 1
PM. The opening of forms was and notified for 2PM on the
said date and the Reserve Price was also fixed.
It is imperative to note here that no right to cancel the tender
bid after opening was notified.
04.06.2001

Amongst the three valid tender offers received by the


Respondent No.1, the Petitioners offer for a sum of Rs.
6,40,000/- per cottah (Rupees Six lacs forty thousand only)
was duly accepted as the highest bid.

Note: One Shri Om Prakash Singh, although present, did not


object to the said tender being opened and declared.
07.06.2001

The Chief Executive Officer, the Respondent No.3 herein vide


a letter informed the Petitioner that his offer of Rs.
6,40,000/- per cottah (Rupees Six lacs forty thousand only)
was accepted and that 12 PM on 15.06.2001 was fixed for
joint measurement.
Letter dated 07.06.3001 at Annexure P-1,
Pages 71-72, SLP Paperbook
Challan/Receipt issued by Respondent No.1
dated 07.06.2001 at Annexure P-2, Pages 7374, SLP Paperbook

15.06.2001

As decided the measurement of the plot was undertaken in


the presence of both the parties in order to ascertain the
actual quantum of land to be transferred in favour of the
Petitioner as per terms and conditions, pursuant to which
the parties also signed the rough sketch.

15.06.2001

One Om Prakash Singh whose tender offer was not accepted


by the Respondent No.1 authorities on 04.06.2001 in view of
the fact that his bid documents were submitted late, filed a
Writ Petition being W.P. No. 10445 (W) of 2001 before the
Honble Calcutta High Court.
The Learned Single Judge of the Honble Calcutta High Court
was pleased to pass an ex-parte interim Order inter-alia
directing the Respondent No.1 not to give any effect to the
tender till three weeks.

26.06.2001

The Respondent No.1 filed an application for vacating the


interim Order dated 15.06.2001 passed by the Learned
Single Judge on the ground that the writ was liable to be
dismissed and that they be permitted to complete the
formalities in favour of the Petitioner.
Note: it is pertinent to note that the Respondent No.1
authorities changed their stand before Honble Division
Bench in the first round and took a complete about turn
from their earlier stand before the Learned Single Judge.

12.07.2001

Vide an Order passed by the Learned Single Judge of the


Honble High Court the Writ Petition being W.P No.
10445/2001 filed by the said Om Prakash Singh came to be
allowed on the ground that the tender notice suffered from
vagueness and the Learned Single Judge directed the

Respondent No.1 authorities to initiate a fresh tender


process through proper publication.
Order dated 12.07.2001 at Pages 1-10,
Additional Documents
July 2001

The Petitioner herein being a successful tenderer in the


earlier tender process was aggrieved by the Order dated
12.07.2001 passed by the Learned Single Judge and hence
preferred a Writ Appeal being FMA No. 187/2003 before a
Division Bench of the Honble High Court also on the ground
that the Writ Petitioner therein i.e. the said Om Prakash
Singh was present at the opening of the tender and had
knowledge of the offer made by the Petitioner and therefore
ought not to have any further say with regard to the tender
process.

17.10.2001

The Division Bench of the Honble High Court, in the


application for stay filed by the Petitioner alongwith the
Appeal, directed stay of the impugned Order of the Learned
Single Judge.

27.07.2010

The Division Bench vide an Order dismissed the Petitioners


appeal on the ground that the price of the land had gone up
exponentially and that if there is only one offer then it
cannot be said that the purpose of issuing a notice inviting
tender has been fulfilled. However, the Honble High Court
failed to appreciate that in view of the tender and acceptance
of the tender there was nothing left to be done as there
existed a valid concluded contract between the parties and
that, therefore there could be no variation in the terms and
conditions as specified at the time of tender and finalization
thereof.
Order dated 27.07.2010 at Annexure P-3,
Pages 75-82, SLP Paperbook

16.09.2010/
19.08.2010

Aggrieved by the Order dated 27.07.2010 passed by the


Division Bench of the Honble High Court the Petitioner
herein filed a Special Leave Petition being SLP (Civil) No.
24285/2011 before this Honble Court and this Honble
Court while issuing notice was please to direct that in the
meantime, the tender process which had already commenced
may continue but no final contract was to be awarded in
respect thereof.

21.10.2013

Vide a judgment and final Order this Honble Court was


pleased to set-aside the judgment of the Learned Single

Judge as well as the Division Bench of the Honble High


Court inter-alia holding that the reasoning given by the
Learned Single Judge and the Division Bench was incorrect
but however also observed that they were not expressing any
opinion on the merits of the claim of the appellant therein
(the Petitioner herein) or that of the HIT (the Respondent
No.1 herein) with regard to the question as to whether or not
there was a binding contract for sale of the land in question.
Order dated 21.10.2013 at Annexure P-4,
Pages 83-89, SLP Paperbook
28.11.2013

The Petitioner herein after to the judgment and final Order of


this Honble Court called upon the Respondent Nos.2 and 3
herein for an early completion of the sale and execution and
registration of the deed of conveyance in his favour. The
Petitioner herein in order to show his readiness and
willingness to complete the transaction, alongwith the
requisite documents also sent a draft/pay order for a sum of
Rs. 24,88,000/- (Rupees twenty four lakhs eighty eight
thousand only) being the balance consideration amount.
Letter dated 28.11.2013 at Annexure P-5,
Pages 90-93, SLP Paperbook

03.12.2013

The Petitioner herein sent a reminder as a follow up to his


earlier letter dated 28.11.2013 for the completion of the
transaction.
Letter dated 03.12.2013 at Annexure P-6,
Pages 94-95, SLP Paperbook

24.12.2013

The Respondent No.1 Authority in gross disregard to the


provisions of law and also the judgment and final order
dated 21.10.2013 of this Honble Court which set-aside the
judgment/order of the Division Bench as also the Learned
Single Judge, and without paying any heed to the Petitioners
several requests for completion of the transaction issued a
notice inviting tenders for the self-same land. It is pertinent
to note that the Respondent No.1 did so without any valid
justification and/or rescission of the contract between the
Petitioner and the Respondent No.1.
Advertisement dated 24.12.2013 at Annexure
P-7, Pages 96-98, SLP Paperbook

Year 2013

The Petitioner herein being aggrieved by the notice dated


24.12.2013 of the Respondent No.1 inviting tenders filed a
Writ Petition being W.P No. 38345 (W) /2013 to inter-alia

seek completion of the sale already concluded by virtue of


the first tender in favour of the Petitioner and for quashing of
the notice dated 24.12.2013.
Writ Petition No. 38345 (W) /2013 at Annexure P-8,
Pages 99-149, SLP Paperbook
02.01.2014

A Learned Single Judge of the Honble High Court while


issuing notice was also pleased to inter-alia direct the
Respondent No.1 not to open the tenders as fixed by the
impugned notice till 08.01.2014. The said stay continued to
the disposal of the Writ Petition.
Order dated 02.01.2014 at Annexure P-9,
Pages 150-152, SLP Paperbook

26.09.2014

The Learned Single Judge vide an Order was pleased to


dismiss the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner herein on the
self-same ground which was the reasoning of the Division
Bench of the Honble High Court in the first round of which
judgment stood set-aside by this Honble Court that in view
of the exorbitant escalation value of the plot because of the
time gone by the Petitioners contention of finalization of sale
by reason of the first tender being complete could not be
accepted however, the status quo in respect of the plot of
land was directed to continue till 30.10.2014.
Judgment and Order dated 26.09.2014 at
Annexure P-10, Pages 153-187, SLP Paperbook

October, 2014

Being aggrieved by the judgment/order dated 26.09.2014


passed by the Learned Single Judge the Petitioner herein
preferred a Writ Appeal being MAT No. 1937/2014 before a
Division Bench of the Honble High Court.
Memorandum of Appeal at Annexure P-11,
Pages 188-202, SLP Paperbook

30.10.2014

A Division Bench of the Honble High Court while directing


the appeal to be listed for hearing next week were also
pleased to record the submission of the Respondent No.1
herein that they would not precipitate the matter till the next
date of hearing and the said stand continued till the disposal
of the Writ Appeal.
Order dated 30.10.2014 at Annexure P-12,
Pages 203-204, SLP Paperbook

23.02.2015

The Division Bench of the Honble High Court vide the


impugned judgment and final Order upheld the Order of the

Learned Single Judge without appreciating that there existed


a concluded contract between the parties by reason of the
first tender and that change in the price of the land sought
to be auctioned could not be a ground for setting-aside the
tender which stood finalized in favour of the Petitioner.
Impugned Judgment/Final Order at
Pages 1-45, SLP Paperbook
.03.2015

Being aggrieved, the Petitioner herein preferred the instant


Special Leave Petition.
SLP at Pages 46-63, SLP Paperbook