Case: Devi Marine Food Exports Limited, Madras Vs. Goa Meat Complex Limited, Panaji

others, JT 1992 (2) SC 116 . It was urged that what is involved is only a commercial interest and, therefore, intervention be not permitted.( 9 ) IT may be mentioned in the first instance that there are two orders in the field, the first one is dated 2nd July, 1993 by which Writ Petition no. 79/1993 of Allana was dismissed and Supreme Court upheld the decision except that M/s. Allana was permitted to work out the contract by an extention of one year going upto 8th April, 1994 The tenders could not be opened soon after the High Court order as a result of stay and thereafter as the matter was seisin by the Supreme Court. The second order is dated 24th March, 1994, which we have already extracted above. This order makes it amply clear as to what made this Court direct Meat Complex to record fresh enhanced offers and prepare separate chart of the same. This Court was proved right as finally it transpires that M/s. Anjaneya offered a sum as high as Rs. 3,09,42,000/- as against the highest tender bid of Rs. 1,81,00,000/ -. Viewed thus it is not possible to entertain how M/s. Ahmed and Company can now urge in Writ Petition No. 168 of 1994 that they had legitimate expectation because their bid was the highest in the tender. The second aspect is that M/s. Ahmed and Company did not even attend the opening of the tenders or to give fresh enhanced offers oa 25th March, 1994 despite notice to that effect. On the contrary they wrote to the Meat Complex by their letter of 24th March, 1994 representing that meat Complex can proceed in the matter in their absence There is not even a reference to this letter in the petition. ( 10 ) INSOFAR as M/s. 1. Ahmed and Co. and M/s. A1-Quresh are concerned it is common ground that they never bidded when the tenders were invited in March, 1993. Their grievance that M/s. Devi Marine, who had not been a tenderer earlier was allowed to offer enhanced offers on the ground of discrimination must fail for two reasons. The first being that m/s Devi Marine came in a petition before the opening of the tenders scheduled for 25th March, 1994 and that is how this Court felt that their bid should be recorded. In the second place from the chart already produced though Devi Marine made an offer, the same did not reach any where near the highest offer of M/s. Anjaneya with the result their participation was practically a non entity. In any case Counsel for the petitioners M/s. Devi Marine have no grievance to make any further. ( 11 ) A cudgel was taken that finally fresh bids were invited pursuant to this Courts order dated 24th March, 1994 and this being so, there is nothing wrong if the Court now directs a fresh auction for the same reason so that everybody can participate so as to secure large offers.( 12 ) WE are unable to agree with the submissions nor we are enamoured by the same. We will presently point out that by our order dated 24th March, 1994 we merely directed Meat Complex to record the bids pursuant to the tenders and also to take fresh enhanced offers and thereafter take the necessary decision in the matter according to law. The meat Complex by its decision at the Board meeting held on 18th April, 1994 resolved to accept the highest enhanced rental offer of Rs. 3,09,42,000 of M/s. Anjaneya. The decision to accept the highest offer is by the Meat complex itself. The proceedings of the meeting dated 18th April, 1994 suggest that the Meat Complex was aware that fresh Writ Petitions, namely, 169 of 1994 and 173 of 1994 have been filed and even highest offers than the one made by M/s. Anjaneya had been made. Despite knowing this when the Meat Complex has accepted the offer of M/s. Anjaneya from amongst the offers restricted to earlier tenderers, no doubt M/s. Devi marine was also given a chance, though without any effect, in our view nothing can be faulted with such decision. The Meat Complex did not decide to call for fresh tenders. It must be also borne in mind that the procedure adopted by the Meat Complex in inviting all old tenderers and allowing them to give sealed single enhanced offer was reasonable and fair to all. Merely because some parties today come with some higher offer is no ground to frustrate the decision of the Meat Complex and the orders of this Court more particularly when M/s. Allanas petition was disposed of. The enhanced offers were known to all on 25th March, 1994, The three petitions 168 of 1994, 169 of 1994 and 173 of 1994 were instituted after m/s. Anjaneyas highest offer of Rs. 3,09,42,000/- was made known. At any rate nothing can be faulted with the decision of the Meat Complex viz. , commercial transaction taken by the Board Members presided over by the chairman, who is no less than the Chief Minister himself. ( 13 ) SHRI Manohar, learned Counsel, who appeared for the parties, who sought intervention is right when he says that Courts cannot be made instruments at the hands of the litigants. He also rightly mentioned that no mala fides are imputed to Meal Complex. ( 14 ) PETITIONERS in new petitions indeed alleged that M/s. Devi Marine and M/s. Anjaneya are none other than M/s. Allana but then as against this it is alleged on the other side that the fresh petitioners are none other than M/s. Mac Donald. It is indeed true that Shri Zaiwalla did mention that M/s. I. Ahmed is not connected with either. ( 15 ) WE think a final curtain must be drawn on this abattoir at this stage. From 8th April, 1994 the Complex is losing nearly Rs. 1 lakh per day which must also halt as early as possible.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]9 ) IT may be mentioned in the first instance that there are two orders in the field, the first one is dated 2nd July, 1993 by which Writ Petition no. 79/1993 of Allana was dismissed and Supreme Court upheld the decision except that M/s. Allana was permitted to work out the contract by an extention of one year going upto 8th April, 1994 The tenders could not be opened soon after the High Court order as a result of stay and thereafter as the matter was seisin by the Supreme Court. The second order is dated 24th March, 1994, which we have already extracted above. This order makes it amply clear as to what made this Court direct Meat Complex to record fresh enhanced offers and prepare separate chart of the same. This Court was proved right as finally it transpires that M/s. Anjaneya offered a sum as high as Rs. 3,09,42,000/as against the highest tender bid of Rs.. Viewed thus it is not possible to entertain how M/s. Ahmed and Company can now urge in Writ Petition No. 168 of 1994 that they had legitimate expectation because their bid was the highest in the tender. The second aspect is that M/s. Ahmed and Company did not even attend the opening of the tenders or to give fresh enhanced offers oa 25th March, 1994 despite notice to that effect. On the contrary they wrote to the Meat Complex by their letter of 24th March, 1994 representing that meat Complex can proceed in the matter in their absence There is not even a reference to this letter in the10 ) INSOFAR as M/s. 1. Ahmed and Co. and M/s.are concerned it is common ground that they never bidded when the tenders were invited in March, 1993. Their grievance that M/s. Devi Marine, who had not been a tenderer earlier was allowed to offer enhanced offers on the ground of discrimination must fail for two reasons. The first being that m/s Devi Marine came in a petition before the opening of the tenders scheduled for 25th March, 1994 and that is how this Court felt that their bid should be recorded. In the second place from the chart already produced though Devi Marine made an offer, the same did not reach any where near the highest offer of M/s. Anjaneya with the result their participation was practically a non entity. In any case Counsel for the petitioners M/s. Devi Marine have no grievance to make any11 ) A cudgel was taken that finally fresh bids were invited pursuant to this Courts order dated 24th March, 1994 and this being so, there is nothing wrong if the Court now directs a fresh auction for the same reason so that everybody can participate so as to secure large offers.( 12 ) WE are unable to agree with the submissions nor we are enamoured by the same. We will presently point out that by our order dated 24th March, 1994 we merely directed Meat Complex to record the bids pursuant to the tenders and also to take fresh enhanced offers and thereafter take the necessary decision in the matter according to law. The meat Complex by its decision at the Board meeting held on 18th April, 1994 resolved to accept the highest enhanced rental offer of Rs. 3,09,42,000 of M/s. Anjaneya. The decision to accept the highest offer is by the Meat complex itself. The proceedings of the meeting dated 18th April, 1994 suggest that the Meat Complex was aware that fresh Writ Petitions, namely, 169 of 1994 and 173 of 1994 have been filed and even highest offers than the one made by M/s. Anjaneya had been made. Despite knowing this when the Meat Complex has accepted the offer of M/s. Anjaneya from amongst the offers restricted to earlier tenderers, no doubt M/s. Devi marine was also given a chance, though without any effect, in our view nothing can be faulted with such decision. The Meat Complex did not decide to call for fresh tenders. It must be also borne in mind that the procedure adopted by the Meat Complex in inviting all old tenderers and allowing them to give sealed single enhanced offer was reasonable and fair to all. Merely because some parties today come with some higher offer is no ground to frustrate the decision of the Meat Complex and the orders of this Court more particularly when M/s. Allanas petition was disposed of. The enhanced offers were known to all on 25th March, 1994, The three petitions 168 of 1994, 169 of 1994 and 173 of 1994 were instituted after m/s. Anjaneyas highest offer of Rs. 3,09,42,000/was made known. At any rate nothing can be faulted with the decision of the Meat Complex viz. , commercial transaction taken by the Board Members presided over by the chairman, who is no less than the Chief Minister14 ) PETITIONERS in new petitions indeed alleged that M/s. Devi Marine and M/s. Anjaneya are none other than M/s. Allana but then as against this it is alleged on the other side that the fresh petitioners are none other than M/s. Mac Donald. It is indeed true that Shri Zaiwalla did mention that M/s. I. Ahmed is not connected with15 ) WE think a final curtain must be drawn on this abattoir at this stage. From 8th April, 1994 the Complex is losing nearly Rs. 1 lakh per day which must also halt as early as