CATERPILLAR INDIA PVT LTD Vs. WESTERN COAL FIELDS LTD
LAWS(SC)-2007-5-130
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on May 18,2007

CATERPILLAR INDIA PVT. LTD Appellant
VERSUS
WESTERN COAL FIELDS LTD. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J. - (1.) Leave granted in SLP (C) No. 24219/2003.
(2.) The point involved in these cases essentially is the purchase preference given to Public Sector Enterprises (in short the PSEs). The petitioners have made a grievance that the key players in the market are petitioners-Caterpillar and Bharat Earth Movers Ltd. Most important purchaser for all these are coal fields, for example Western Coalfield and its subsidiaries-Coal India Ltd. They are invariably the purchasers in respect of earth moving machines. Prior to 1992 price preference was given to PSEs. Post-1992 purchase preference was given and the lowest and the second lowest bidders were being described as L-1 and L-2. Purchase orders were issued by the Coal India Ltd., broadly in the ratio of 60/40 and the L-2 was required to match the L-1 price. The language used earlier was "may" as indicated by Circular dated 13.1.1992. The purchase preference policy was extended by office memorandum dated 15.3.1995 for a further period of two years. It was further extended till 21.3.2000 by office memorandum dated 31.10.1997, subject to purchase being in excess of Rs. 5 crores. By office memorandum dated 14.9.2000, the policy was extended till 31.3.2002. However, the minimum value of purchase was brought down to rupees one crore. By office memorandum dated 14.6.2002, the policy was extended till 31.3.2004 and the scheme was made valid for purchase of rupees five crores and above. By office memorandum dated 26.10.2004, which extended the policy for one year upto 31.3.2005 retrospectively from 1.4.2004. By office memorandum the policy was extended for a period of three years retrospectively with effect from 18.7.2005. The word may was substituted by the word will by this office memorandum. According to the petitioners the intention was to give somewhat longer period for stabilizing all PSEs. It never intended to create any monopoly.
(3.) Grievance is made that by substitution of the word may by the word will is arbitrary. The word may gives a wider option to the tenderers and all the tenderers were on a level playground without any unnecessary protection to any of the parties.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.