9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the sale of plants and equipment of the Sindri Fertilizer Factory. 2. Reduction of the original tender amount. 3. Alleged manipulation of the sale price. 4. Restriction of fresh offers to certain tenderers. 5. Alleged loss to the public exchequer. 6. Impact on the employment of factory workers. 7. Violation of fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. 8. Maintainability of the writ petition under Article 32. 9. Locus standi of the petitioners. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the Sale: The petitioners challenged the legality of the sale of certain plants and equipment of the Sindri Fertilizer Factory, where the highest tender of Rs. 4.25 crores submitted by Respondent 4 was accepted. The petitioners sought to quash the decision as illegal and unconstitutional. 2. Reduction of the Original Tender Amount: The original highest offer was Rs. 7.6 crores, which was later reduced to Rs. 4.25 crores. The reduction was attributed to the exclusion of certain items from the sale list and the adjustment of weights and sales tax considerations. 3. Alleged Manipulation of the Sale Price: The petitioners alleged that the price was manipulated with ulterior motives. However, the court found that the reduction in price was justified due to the reduction in the quantity of items offered for sale. 4. Restriction of Fresh Offers: The decision to restrict fresh offers to tenderers who had submitted tenders exceeding Rs. 4 crores was challenged as unfair and arbitrary. The court noted that this restriction was reasonable given the circumstances and aimed at ensuring the best possible price for the reduced stock. 5. Alleged Loss to the Public Exchequer: The petitioners argued that readvertising the sale could have fetched a higher price, resulting in a loss to the public exchequer. The court found no evidence to support this claim and held that the sale process was conducted fairly. 6. Impact on Employment: The sale allegedly jeopardized the employment of 11,000 workers. The court found that no employee was deprived of employment due to the sale, as the management had decided to deploy the workmen in other plants and facilities within the Sindri complex. 7. Violation of Fundamental Rights: The petitioners contended that the sale violated their fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g) and Article 14 of the Constitution. The court held that the right to carry on an occupation was not infringed by the sale, as the workers' employment was not affected. Additionally, the sale was not arbitrary or unfair, thus not violating Article 14. 8. Maintainability of the Writ Petition: The Attorney General raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition, arguing that the petitioners had no locus standi and that no fundamental rights were violated. The court emphasized that Article 32 is meant for the enforcement of fundamental rights and found no violation of such rights in this case. 9. Locus Standi: The court discussed the broader issue of locus standi, especially in the context of public interest litigation. It acknowledged the need for a liberal approach to ensure access to justice but ultimately held that the petitioners' fundamental rights were not violated in this instance. Conclusion: The court dismissed the petition, finding no violation of the petitioners' fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(g) or 14. The sale process was deemed fair and reasonable, and the petitioners' employment was not adversely affected. The writ petition was held to be maintainable, but the court found no grounds to quash the sale decision. There was no order as to costs.
|
