📈SR. ADV HUZEFA AHMADI ARGUMENTS| 2021 TENDER STALLED BY LITIGATION, BIDDER SEEKS RELIEF

Added: 2026-05-17

[00:00:00]27 your lordship said 2021. NIT was issued in 2021.

[00:00:04]No, when an NIT was issued >> 2021 21 There's no delay on my part.

[00:00:11]>> So, it's a 6 years old NIT.

[00:00:13]Yes, yes. There there it was challenged in a writ petition. There's always a clause that the department reserves a right to cancel >> But the department doesn't say that my lords. I can understand if the department says The contract period is from 2021 to 2027.

[00:00:27]No, my lords. It says that your lease will run from the time that the lease is executed. So, the 7-year lease will only it's not been executed. Very if it has not been executed so time has not started running. Your lordship But the court has kept in mind the revenue interest of the government.

[00:00:47]Discretion has not been exercised in your favor. DPA has upheld the order.

[00:00:51]We should we interfere in a discretionary order. So, so let me answer that. Two two aspects.

[00:00:56]One is my lords, there is nothing to show that there is revenue loss.

[00:01:01]I can understand my lords my lords >> Being on record means 2021 whatever would be the rate >> No, with this And if it is advertised now 2026 >> Someone has to come to the conclusion that the price of sand has gone up.

[00:01:14]There is nothing to show that. Point number one.

[00:01:16]Point number two is my lords the the department has never said that please re-tender.

[00:01:22]That there is a revenue loss and there is a re-tender.

[00:01:24]Now the third point the third point my lords Department may not say so. No, third department's function but it is after all the high court which is the guardian of the constitution.

[00:01:36]If it has taken a view that Uh the interest of the state would be best served if there is a re-tender you require very strong reasons to dislodge this. So, may I now my lords say state one reason why your lordship should dislodge dislodge the reason. Your lordships have repeatedly said judiciary that judicial review my lords in a tender matter is extremely limited. Only on the principle of Wednesbury Arbitrary.

[00:02:03]The finding of the single judge or the finding of the division bench, there is no finding returned that there is Wednesbury Arbitraryness. Your Lordships have gone to the extent of saying in a tender matter we will only interfere where the Arbitraryness borders on perversity. I ask myself this question from the division bench order or from the order of the single judge, where is the finding returned that there is any Arbitraryness?

[00:02:27]The High Court in tender matters Yes, my lord.

[00:02:31]courts have to decide in this keeping in mind public interest.

[00:02:36]Even if you make out a solid point on law, the court will refuse to do so.

[00:02:41]It may.

[00:02:42]>> Right. It may, my lord. Now now Now let me point out >> meantime, these decisions are there from 2001 only. Yes, now let me point out, my lord, Court may not have referred to those decisions. Yes. But the essence of the judgment is this, that this would not be in furtherance of public interest to allow this 2021 tender to proceed.

[00:03:01]My lords, may I may I That is that is the point. Yes, now now may I answer that?

[00:03:05]I can understand, my lords, as I said so at the outset, I can understand, my lords, if the court came to the conclusion that there was a substantial price escalation.

[00:03:15]There is no data before the court to come to this particular conclusion either.

[00:03:19]Now, otherwise, my lords, the principle is is is fairly hazardous, my lords, so far as the citizen is concerned. Your Lordships have, my lords, starting from Antulay's case said that act of court should do no do do no wrong. That is, my lords, no party should suffer on account of the fact that the list remains pending before the court. There is no portion of the blame which is apportioned to me for the delay, my lords, in this particular aspect. In which case, my lords, I who is the highest bidder, who has bid substantially over the reserve price, is put to prejudice for no of my own. I can understand my lords if the court had said that there is a 40% price escalation, there is a 50% price escalation, or there is a 10% price escalation. There is no such finding which is written. And please see the judgement of the division bench my lords. The division bench effectively exercising jurisdiction under LPA, that's my lords effectively the first appeal against the single judge. There's nothing dealt with by the division bench. It's only my lords just one one particular line which says that if the single judge has done this we don't interfere. Almost as if it's a 136 discretion. At least in an LPA something should have been dealt with by the learned division bench.

[00:04:30]That's my respectful submission otherwise >> to the decisions of this court in so and so versus so and so and so and so versus so and so. We see no reason to interfere.

[00:04:41]Your lordship's discretion my lords I I can't talk about That is why we are referring to Cochin International and Air India. My lords. These two cases will be decided Your lordships took a view my lords in Adani Port which I wanted to rely upon. Right.

[00:04:55]So that was there. That was Not here. I [clears throat] think it I think it'll pervade here as well.

[00:05:02]My lords you please.