THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.35694 of 2014 Dated: 24.11.2014 Between:
Mr. Omar Sahib .. Petitioner and The Director General of Foreign Trade Udyog Bhavan, New Delhi, and others.
.. Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. N. Harinath Counsel for respondents 1&2 : Advocate General (A.P.) The court made the following:
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed on the allegation that the respondents have been seeking to eliminate the Indian bidders from the global e-auction of Red Sanders wood under notification dated 07.11.2014.
I have heard Mr. N. Harinath, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Advocate General (A.P.) and perused the record.
In pursuance of permission obtained by respondent No.2 for sale of 4,160 metric tons of graded Red Sanders wood stored in A.P. Forest Department depots located at Kadapa, Bhakarapet, Tirupati, Udayagiri, Kanigiri, Adurupally and Venkatagiri, respondent No.2 has issued a notice for global e-tender-cum-e-auction. A pre-bid meeting was held on 04.09.2014 in the office of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, A.P., at Aranya Bhavan, Hyderabad. A perusal of the minutes of the meeting shows that one of the questions raised by a participant is whether the domestic buyer, after getting consignment, can convert the same into Value Added Product (VAP) form. A clarification was given to the effect that he can convert the same, but he can only sell the same domestically and he is not permitted to export. However, respondent No.2 has issued a further clarification on 19.11.2014, wherein it was made clear that for export of purchased Red Sanders wood in log form by Indian or foreign buyers, the conditions stipulated by the Director General of Foreign Trade in notification No.47 have to be followed.
The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that by the time the clarification was posted in the website on 21.11.2014, the petitioner and other Indian bidders are left with only three days’ time for furnishing bank guarantee of additional pre-bid deposit and that this has put them in a great disadvantage. The petitioner alleged that all this was done with a view to eliminate Indian bidders.
At the hearing, Mr. N. Harinath, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that after filing of the writ petition, his client has received a mail from respondent No.2 that the Indian bidders can furnish bank guarantee on or before 01.12.2014.
In view of the above-mentioned subsequent event, the disadvantage if any suffered by the Indian bidders is properly redressed by granting them time till 01.12.2014, which in my opinion is very reasonable for obtaining bank guarantee. In this view of the matter, I do not find any reason to interfere with the e-auction proposed to be held from today.
For the afore-mentioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed.
As a sequel to the dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.44659 of 2014 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 24th November, 2014 IBL