Madras High Court Metro Machinery Traders Rep. By Its ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) Rep. By Its ... on 26 October, 2007 ORDER M. Chockalingam, J. 1. The main writ petition itself is taken up for consideration following the request made by the Counsel on either side. 2. Invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court, the petitioner has sought for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to Sale Order/Acceptance Letter No. MSTC/S/NLC/EA14/200506/101/008 dated 1.4.2005 issued by the fifth respondent, quash the same and direct the second and third respondents to return the amount of Rs.163,49,96,511/ after deducting the amounts already received, with interest at the rate of 18% from 30.4.2005 to the petitioner. 3. The affidavit in support of the petition and the counter affidavits of the respondents 2, 3 and 4 are perused. The Court heard the learned Counsel on either side. 4. The following would emerge as facts admitted: (a) The petitioner is a partnership firm. The respondents 2, 3 and 4 are owned and managed by the Government of India while the respondents 2 and 3 are under the control of the first respondent. Likewise, the respondents 4 and 5 are under the control of the Union of India. Thus, the respondents 2 to 5 are Public Companies under the control of the Government of India. The Neyveli Lignite Corporation (hereinafter referred to as NLC) issued two communications both on 24.5.2004, one addressed to the Superintendent of Central Excise, Virudhachalam, and the other to the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Pondicherry, regarding the disposal of the fertilizer plant. On 7.6.2004, the Superintendent of Central Excise, Virudhachalam, requested the second respondent to inform the payment of Customs Duty and Central Excise Duty and to pay the arrears of duty/penalty/fine/demand pending as on date. On 30.6.2004, the NLC replied to the Superintendent of Central Excise, Virudhachalam, that the machinery, equipment, spares, etc., required for the fertilizer plant, were procured only after paying the Customs/Excise Duty as applicable. On 2.7.2004, the Superintendent of Central Excise, Virudhachalam, requested the second respondent to furnish the details of the machinery, imported with partial/full exemption and bills of entry for the same. The same was furnished by the second respondent on 10.7.2004. While the matter stood thus, the fifth respondent issued an advertisement for auction notice No. MST.BLR/Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd., 14/Neyveli/2004/05/1025(1674) alleging that the respondents 2 and 3 being owner in possession of the machinery, intended to sell the fertilizer plant, machinery etc., as installed in its factory at Neyveli within its disposal. The fifth respondent by its tender notice dated 27.1.2005, issued general terms and conditions. The petitioner made its offer, and the same was accepted by the fifth respondent at the auction held on 1.4.2005. The fifth respondent issued confirmation of acceptance of the petitioner's offer for Lot No. 01(one) in its letter dated 1.4.2005 on "As is where is basis". The earnest money deposit of Rs.13,20,00,000/ paid by the petitioner, was to be kept as security deposit as per the terms and conditions against the sale value. The petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.50 lakhs which was the condition precedent for tender offer. The petitioner's bid amount of Rs.132.01 Crores was found to be the highest and was accepted by the fifth respondent. Following the same, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.149,79,69,511/ in favour of the second respondent payable at Neyveli on 29.4.2005 towards the full payment. The fifth respondent issued the sale order/acceptance letter whereby the auction sale was confirmed on "As is where is basis". (b) On 11.5.2005, the petitioner took factory license. A delivery order was issued in favour of the petitioner on 18.5.2005 wherein the period was mentioned as 370 days commencing from 19.5.2005 and ending with 23.5.2006. The petitioner started dismantling on 19.5.2005 itself. The second respondent sought the permission from the Chief Inspector of Boiler, Madras, to condemn the Waste Heat Boiler on 18.10.2005 and 19.12.2005 respectively. Accordingly, the Chief Inspector of Boiler permitted for scrapping the Waste Heat Boiler by a communication dated 22.12.2005. The second respondent NLC requested the Chief Inspector of Boiler to declare the Boiler as scrapped. The petitioner requested the second respondent to extend the time to finish the work. On 22.5.2006, at the instance of the fourth respondent, an interim order came to be passed by the Delhi High Court in OMP No. 232 of 2006, which restrained the other party from making sale, transfer or alienation of the rights of the fertilizer plant and also restrained the second respondent from paying any amount of EMD and security deposit to the petitioner herein and also appoin