9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (4) TMI 150X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue under Receipt No. 21248, dated 12-1-2006. Besides the aforesaid payment, he also made a further payment of Rs. 17,955/- towards Sales Tax and Surcharge under Receipt No. 1249, dated 19-1-2006 and made another payment of Rs. 1,983/- on 19-1-2006 towards Destuffing charges. Thus he has paid the entire sale consideration and other statutory duties and service charges. The goods were destuffed from the container and were loaded in the vehicle on 19-1-2006. When the vehicle was about to take the goods out of the warehouse, the warehouse officials abruptly stopped the vehicle stating that there was an instruction not to release the goods and asked the petitioner to wait for one more day. Since the cargo was not released till Tuesday, the petitioner made arrangements to unload the cargo from the vehicle and he sustained loss for a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards vehicle, loading and unloading charges unnecessarily. 3. Since the respondents unilaterally denied to release the goods, the petitioner sent representations dated 1-2-2006 and 20-2-2006 requesting the respondents to release the goods forthwith. Pursuant to that, the petitioner received an order bearing No. 05/05 Sanco CFS Docks ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he said contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The impugned order cannot be said to be arbitrary or opposed to the principles of natural justice. It is categorically stated in condition No. 11 that any lot or part thereof may be withdrawn from the sale at any time before it is actually physically delivered out of the campus without disclosing the reasons for such withdrawal. It is not the case of the petitioner that the goods were actually physically delivered out of the campus. Further, the petitioner has been advised to approach Sanco CFS to get the amount paid by him refunded, which is strictly in accordance with the above said condition. The petitioner may not be put to any financial loss. The petitioner had taken part in the E-Auction only after fully knowing about the general conditions of sale including condition No. 11 of the general conditions of sale. Having accepted the conditions of sale and having taken part in the E Auction, accepting to abide by the general conditions of sale, it is not open to the petitioner to question the right of the respondents to withdraw the auctioned goods from the sale. In the impugned order, it is clearly stated that due to a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the facts of the case in 2001 (8) S.C.C. 491 and the facts of the instant case are totally different. 11. The question of discrimination does not at all arise in this case. In 2001 (8) S.C.C. 491, the Supreme Court has observed as follows : "merely because the authority has certain elbow room available for use of discretion in accepting offer in contracts, the same will have to be done within the four corners of the requirements of law, especially Article 14 of the Constitution. In the instant case, we have noticed that apart from rejecting the offer of the writ petitioner arbitrarily, the writ petitioner has now been virtually debarred from competing with EDC in the supply of spare parts to be used in the governors by the Railways, ever since the year 1992, and during all this while, we are told the Railways are making purchases without any tender on a proprietary basis only from EDC which, in our opinion, is in flagrant violation of the constitutional mandate of Article 14." The above said passage clearly shows that since the Railways not only rejected the offer of the writ petitioner therein arbitrarily, the writ petitioner therein was virtually debarred from competing wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he time of entry into the field of consideration of persons with whom the Government could contract at all, the State, no doubt, acts purely in its executive capacity and is bound by the obligations which dealings of the State with the individual citizens import into every transaction entered into in exercise of its constitutional powers. But, after the State or its agents have entered into the field of ordinary contract and relations are no longer governed by the constitutional provisions but by the legally valid contract which determines rights and obligations of the parties inter se. No question arises of violation of Art. 14 or of any other constitutional provision when the State or its agents, purporting to act within this field, perform any act. In this sphere, they can only claim rights conferred upon them by contract and are bound by the terms of the contract only unless some statute steps in and confers some special statutory power or obligation on the State in the contractual field which is apart from contract'. 'Even in cases where the question is of choice or consideration of competing claims before an entry into the field of contract, facts have to be investigated and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... invoking the arbitration clause. It is also a settled law that a party to a contract is bound by the arbitration clause contained in the contract and he has to seek for arbitration in terms of the stipulations contained in the agreement. Hence, having agreed to abide by the conditions contained in general conditions of the auction, which contain as above said an arbitration clause in condition No. 28, the petitioner cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 18. The above view of mine is supported by the decision reported in 1998 (1) C.T.C. 369 (Venkatasami, B. v. General Manager, Southern Railway and Others) and by the decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported in 2000 (4) C.T.C. 711 (Union of India v. Sri Gayathri Agencies). 19. In this context, it is also useful to refer to the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court of India reported in A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 3515 (State of U.P. v. Bridge Roof Co. (India) Ltd.), wherein in Paragraph No. 21, the Apex Court held as follows : "There is yet another substantial reason for not entertaining the writ petition. The contract in question contains a clause providing inter alia for settlement of disputes by reference to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
