Not specified V. Railways

WP(C)/4829/2012

AI Insights

The case revolves around an auction purchase by the petitioner from the Railways, which involved materials from an old bridge. Despite the petitioner paying the full amount for the auctioned materials, including various taxes and expenditures, he was unable to dismantle the bridge and collect the materials due to local opposition and lack of protection, despite having permission from the BSF. The Railways argued that post-auction, the responsibility to dismantle the bridge lay with the petitioner. The court found this stance unacceptable, noting that the Railways should have ensured the petitioner could access the materials before auctioning them. The court thus ordered the Railways to either facilitate the dismantling and collection of materials or refund the auction amount.

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 816421 (HC-MISC)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 31-05-2013
• Assessment Year: misc
• Result in Favour of: Applicant
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: R SARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: B B NARZARY; S CHAUHAN
• Keywords: Arbitration; Auction purchase; Refund; Material delivery; Bridge dismantling

Judgement Text

"WP(C) 4829/2012 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B K SHARMA Heard Mr. B.B. Narzary, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr S. Chauh an, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr R Sarma, learned Standing Counsel representing the Railways. By means of this revision, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents to refund the amount of Rs. 1,18,32,414/- (including interest pa id Rs. 18,864/-; VAT paid Rs. 4,50,040/- and income tax paid Rs. 1,12,510/-) and their expenditure incurred to Rs. 2,67,400/- and alternatively to deliver the p urchased materials at Alipurduar or at Cochbehar or at Siliguri (New Jalpaiguri) . The matter pertains to auction purchase. When the Railways issued (Annexure-A) Auction Notice showing the materials under the jurisdiction of Deputy CMM/D/NJP , the petitioner responded to the said notice for the lots indicated in Serial N o. 2 of the said auction notice. As per the auction bid-sheet, under the remarks column, it is stated thus:- MATERIAL WILL BE DELIVERED BY LOT MATERIAL SOLD BY LOT. CUTTING ALLOWED. EMD DE POSIT RS.11,26,000.00 (RUPEES ELEVEN LAKHS TWENTY SIX THOUSAND ONLY) EMD NOT SHO WN IN THE RESPECTIVE COLUMN DUE TO MMIS TECHNICAL PROBLEM. When the petitioner after making necessary payments wanted to get the br idge in question dismantled so as to obtain the materials, the local people ther e obstructed him on the ground of preservation of the same, a very old bridge of about 100 years of age. It is stated herein that the petitioner had obtained ne cessary permission from the BSF. However, in absence of any protection provided to him the bridge could not be dismantled. Consequently, the petitioner could no t obtain the materials although he had paid the entire amount to the Railways. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, nothing has been stat ed except that the dispute is required to be resolved through arbitration. Notic ing the said stand in the affidavit and the plea of the petitioner that the resp ondents are duty bound to provide adequate measures so that the petitioner can d ismantle the bridge and obtain the auction purchased and alternatively to refund the amount of auction, Mr. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel submits that once th e auction was over the responsibility to dismantle the bridge and to obtain the materials is shifted to the petitioner and the respondents are in no way respons ible for the problems being faced by the petitioner. Such a plea is absolutely u nacceptable. Mr. Narzary, learned Senior Counsel has referred to the letter dated 08. 06.2012, addressed to the Deputy Chief Engineer, Bridge, Maligaon, by the Execut ive Engineer, Bridge, APDJ, stating therein his approach to the District Magistr ate, Cooch Behar for resolving the issue. In fact, the assistance of the Distric t Magistrate was sought for, but his view was that the issue being a sentimental one, force should not be applied. Thus, the Railways could not do anything but they wanted the petitioner to do all by himself. If the Railways were not in a p osition to make a situation in which the bridge could have been dismantled by th e petitioner, enabling him to collect the materials, they ought not to have put it to auction, but for which the petitioner could not have been paid for this ki nd of situation. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of directing the res pondents to allow the petitioner to dismantle the bridge and to collect the purc hased materials thereon. Alternatively, the amount of auction indicated above sh ould be refunded to him. Let the entire exercise be carried out with the initiation of the same a s expeditiously as possible, preferably within 31st of May 2013. "