2013 (7) TMI 1166 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of the letter dated 09.07.2010.
2. Refund of Rs. 18 Crores paid as one-time license fee along with interest.
3. Production of documents and records related to the issuance and surrender of the license.

Summary:

Issue 1: Quashing of the letter dated 09.07.2010

The petitioner sought to quash the letter dated 09.07.2010, which rejected their request for a refund of the Rs. 18 Crores license fee. The court noted that there was no clause in the advertisement or tender conditions empowering the respondents to retain or forfeit the license fee. The petitioner argued that the respondents had discriminated against them by allowing another similarly situated applicant, DRL, to withdraw and refunding their license fee. The court found that the respondents' decision to reject the petitioner's request was arbitrary and discriminatory, as both EBPL and DRL were allowed to exit the process without penalty. The court quashed the impugned letter, stating that the respondents did not demonstrate any harm or injury caused by the petitioner's withdrawal.

Issue 2: Refund of Rs. 18 Crores paid as one-time license fee along with interest

The petitioner sought a refund of Rs. 18 Crores paid as a one-time license fee. The court held that in the absence of a forfeiture clause and given that the license fee was not in the nature of earnest money or security deposit, the respondents could not retain the amount. The court referred to various judgments, including De-Smet (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. B.P. Industrial Corporation (P.) Ltd., which established that advance payments made as part of the purchase price must be refunded if the transaction falls through, even if the purchaser is responsible for the breach. The court directed the respondents to refund the Rs. 18 Crores to the petitioner within two weeks but did not grant the request for interest, as it required examination of the breach of contract charge against the petitioner.

Issue 3: Production of documents and records related to the issuance and surrender of the license

The petitioner also sought the production of documents and records related to the issuance and subsequent surrender of the license. The court did not explicitly address this ancillary prayer in detail, focusing instead on the primary issues of quashing the impugned letter and refunding the license fee.

Conclusion:

The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned letter dated 09.07.2010, and directed the respondents to refund the Rs. 18 Crores license fee to the petitioner within two weeks. The court clarified that the respondents could institute an action for damages against the petitioner if they were so advised. Each party was directed to bear its own costs.