5

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIACIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONSLP (CIVIL) No. 7894 OF 2015

IN THE MATTER OF:Dr. Nagendra Rai .PetitionerVersusHowrah Improvement Trust & Ors. Respondent

LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS20.04.2001The Howrah Improvement Trust (the Respondent No.1 herein) issued a 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. 14.05.2001The 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. 14.05.2001The 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.17.05.2001Pursuant 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.04.06.2001Amongst 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.07.06.2001The 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 PaperbookChallan/Receipt issued by Respondent No.1 dated 07.06.2001 at Annexure P-2, Pages 73-74, SLP Paperbook15.06.2001As 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. 15.06.2001One 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.26.06.2001The 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.12.07.2001Vide 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 2001The 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.17.10.2001The 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.27.07.2010The 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 Paperbook16.09.2010/19.08.2010Aggrieved 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.21.10.2013Vide 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 Paperbook28.11.2013The 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 Paperbook03.12.2013The 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 Paperbook24.12.2013The 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 PaperbookYear 2013The 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 Paperbook02.01.2014A 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 Paperbook26.09.2014The 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 PaperbookOctober, 2014Being 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 Paperbook30.10.2014A 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 Paperbook23.02.2015The 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 .03.2015Being aggrieved, the Petitioner herein preferred the instant Special Leave Petition.SLP at Pages 46-63, SLP Paperbook