Industrial Development Corpn. ... vs M/S Visa Steel Ltd. &Amp; Ors on 1 February, 2010

     IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                      IA 4 OF 2009

                            IN

              CIVIL APPEAL NO. 671 OF 2006

Industrial Development Corpn. Orissa Ltd. .... Applicant (s)  Versus

M/s Visa Steel Ltd. & Ors. .... Respondent(s)  WITH

         I.A. NO.4 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 672 OF 2006 I.A. NO.4 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.
673 OF 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 655 OF 2006

   ORDER

P. Sathasivam, J.

1) Industrial Development Corporation of Orissa, Ltd. (in  short `IDCOL') filed
the above application in Civil Appeal  Nos. 671-673 of 2006, disposed of on
04.02.2008, praying  for extension of time by another two months for complying
with the directions contained in the Judgment.    1

 2) In the said application, after quoting the operative  portion of the
judgment dated 04.02.2008, the applicant  has stated that pursuant to the said
directions, the Board  of Directors of IDCOL constituted a Committee to consider
the bids of the respondents and the State Government  approved the constitution
of the Committee on  21.05.2008. The Committee consists of:  (i) Managing
Director, IDCOL.

(ii) Director of Mines, Government of Orissa, Bhubneswar. (iii) Regional
Controller of Mines, Indian Bureau of Mines, Government of India, Bhubneswar.

(iv) Additional Secretary to Government, Finance Department, Bhubneswar.

(v) Additional Secretary to Government, Law Department, Bhubneswar.

(vi) Representative of Institute of Minerals & Materials Technology,
Bhubneswar.

(vii) General Manager Mines, IDCOL.

(viii) Deputy General manager (Finance), IDCOL. (ix) The Company Secretary,
IDCOL.

 3) It is the case of the applicant that as per the directions  of this Court,
the concerned bidders/respondents have  2

 already submitted their revised financial bids within time.  By order dated
17.06.2008, this Court extended the time  till 15.09.2008 for complying with the
directions of this  Court. The applicant enumerated various steps that were
taken after the said order till the date of filing of the  present application.
By pointing out those  steps/deliberations, the applicant has prayed for
extension of time by another two months.  4) While hearing the above
application, in view of  objection raised by the respondents, particularly,
Jindal  Strips Ltd., on direction by this Court learned senior  counsel
appearing for the applicant placed  recommendations of the Committee constituted
for  evaluating the bids for development of Tangarpada  Chromite Deposit, in the
meeting held on 05.09.2008 &  08.09.2008. Apart from the above
recommendations, the  applicant has also filed additional affidavit highlighting
their stand for extension of time. In the same manner  Jindal has also filed
reply affidavit disputing the claim of  the applicant.

                                                                   3

 5) We heard Mr. P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel for  applicant, IDCOL and Mr.
T.N. Andurajuna, learned senior  counsel for Jindal Strips Ltd.

6) Before considering the present application for  extension of time on second
occasion, it is useful to refer  the directions issued by this Court in the
judgment dated  04.02.2008.

     "11. On the sole ground that the High Court had relied upon extraneous
materials and has arrived at unfounded conclusions, in normal course we would
have set aside the order and asked the High Court to re-consider the matter. But
considering the passage of time and more particularly the fact that the
advertisement was issued in 2002 and on the basis of materials on record, we
dispose of the appeals in the following terms:

     1. It shall be treated that the technical bids of all the three parties are
valid.

     2. The financial bids were submitted about five years back it would be
appropriate to permit the parties to submit revised financial bids within three
weeks.

     3. The appropriate and authorized Committee of IDCOL shall consider the
technical bids and the financial bids, keeping in view the parameters of the
advertisement, the NIT and the best interest of the State.

     12. It is needless to say the Committee examining the bids shall take note
of all relevant factors. In case it is considered appropriate and in the
interest of the State, it shall be open to the State Government to negotiate
with the parties so that the best interest of the State including generation of
the revenue of the State and overall development of the State in the relevant
fields could be achieved.

     13. Since the matter is pending since long it would be desirable for the
State Government to ensure that the 4

      technical bids and the revised financial bids to be submitted within three
weeks as directed earlier, be evaluated and informed decision taken by end of
June, 2008. The observations and conclusions about malafides of the officials
and their alleged favoritism stand quashed.

     14. The appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent without any order as to
costs."

7) It is appropriate to point out that only IDCOL has filed  an application for
extension of time for compliance of the  order of this Court dated 04.02.2008.
Mr. T.N.  Andurajuna, learned senior counsel for Jindal by pointing  out the
directions in paras 11, 12 and 13 submitted that  the present decision of the
State Government rejecting the  bids of the respondents and authorizing IDCOL to
exploit  mining with Orissa Mining Corporation (OMC) is not in  accordance with
the directions of this Court. But Mr. P.P.  Rao, learned senior counsel
submitted that the decision is  well within the directions of this Court and it
was taken in  the overall interest of the State as observed in the  judgment of
this Court. At present, we are concerned  with the only issue i.e., whether
there is any justifiable  ground for extension of time as claimed by IDCOL. On
going through the report of the Committee, ultimate 5

 decision of the State Government and the details  furnished for arriving at
such decision, we are inclined to  extend the time for carrying out the
directions in the order  dated 04.02.2008. Inasmuch as, except the application
for extension, no other petition or issue pending before us,  we are of the view
that there is no need to consider the  objections raised by the respondents,
particularly, Jindal.  8) On going through the materials placed by the
applicant, we intend to extend further time and we make  it clear that we have
not expressed anything either on the  conduct of the IDCOL or State Government
or the merits  of the objection of the Jindal in this application.  9) Without
expressing any opinion on the above  mentioned issues, we extend the time by
15.03.2010 for  compliance. The applications are disposed of accordingly.
..........................................J. (P. SATHASIVAM)

 ..........................................J. (H.L. DATTU)

NEW DELHI;

                                                                           6

 FEBRUARY 1, 2010.

   7