Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J. - (1.) The petitioners have come up with the instant writ petition against the invocation of a Price Fall Clause in an agreement between the petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.2 for supplying cartridge explosives and accessories to all subsidiary companies of the respondent no.2. The said Price Fall Clause is quoted below: Price Fall Clause: 7.1 Price Fall clause: As per enclosed Pre-Contract Integrity Pact Clause No.7 which reads as under; "The BIDDER undertakes that it has not supplied/is not supplying similar product/systems or subsystems at a price lower than that offered in the present bid in respect of any other Ministry/Department of the Government of India or PSU and if it is found at any stage that similar product/systems or sub systems was supplied by the BIDDER to any other Ministry/Department of the Government of India or a PSU at a lower price, then that very price, with due allowance for elapsed time, will be applicable to the present case and the difference in the cost would be refunded by the BIDDER to the BUYER, if the contract has already been concluded." 7.2 In case the price of a product is reduced for any supplier due to invocation of 'Price Fall clause' or any other reason, the same lower price shall also be applicable for the other suppliers who are having parallel RCs against this tender. If any supplier does not accept the lower price, CIL shall have the right to delete the item from the scope of RC of such firm and procure explosives/accessories from other existing supplier/Reserve RC holders."
(2.) It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner no.1 entered into the said contract, upon the offer of the petitioner being accepted by the respondent no.2, for the period from May 31, 2017 to May 31, 2019, subject to renewal. As per the agreement, the petitioner was to supply a particular type of explosives to the subsidiary companies of the respondent no.2 with certain specifications as stipulated in the contract.
(3.) By a letter dated October 31, 2019 bearing reference: CIL/C2D/Cart Explo & Accy/2017-19/IDL/A-409, the respondent no.2 considered the explanation furnished by the petitioner no.1 to the allegation raised by the respondent no.2 that the petitioner no.1 had violated the Price Fall Clause and intimated to the petitioner no.1 that the said Price Fall Clause incorporated in Clause No. 7.1 of the RC (Running Contract) was thereby invoked, so as to make the lower price of SCCL (Singareni Collieries Company Limited) applicable to the petitioner no.1 against the said RC. Accordingly the chart showing the difference in prices, invoking the Price Fall Clause, was mentioned in the said letter. The writ petitioner challenges the said letter dated October 31, 2019 and the invocation of the Price Fall Clause.;