NOT REPORTABLE                                

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

IA 4 OF 2009 IN

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 671 OF 2006

Industrial Development Corpn. Orissa Ltd.      .... Applicant (s)

Versus

M/s Visa Steel Ltd. & Ors.              .... Respondent(s)

WITH

I.A. NO.4 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 672 OF 2006

I.A. NO.4 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 673 OF 2006

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 655 OF 2006

O R D E R   

P. Sathasivam, J.

1)  Industrial Development Corporation of Orissa, Ltd. (in  

short ‘IDCOL’) filed the above application in Civil Appeal  

Nos. 671-673 of 2006, disposed of on 04.02.2008, praying  

for extension of time by another two months for complying  

with the directions contained in the Judgment.

1

2)   In  the  said  application,  after  quoting  the  operative  

portion of the judgment dated 04.02.2008, the applicant  

has stated that pursuant to the said directions, the Board  

of Directors of IDCOL constituted a Committee to consider  

the  bids  of  the  respondents  and the  State  Government  

approved  the  constitution  of  the  Committee  on  

21.05.2008.  The Committee consists of:

(i)  Managing Director, IDCOL.

(ii)  Director of Mines, Government of Orissa, Bhubneswar.

(iii) Regional Controller of Mines, Indian Bureau of Mines,  

Government of India, Bhubneswar.

(iv)  Additional  Secretary  to  Government,  Finance  

Department, Bhubneswar.

(v)  Additional Secretary to Government, Law Department,  

Bhubneswar.

(vi)   Representative  of  Institute  of  Minerals  & Materials  

Technology, Bhubneswar.

(vii)  General Manager Mines, IDCOL.

(viii)  Deputy General manager (Finance), IDCOL.

(ix)  The Company Secretary, IDCOL.

3)  It is the case of the applicant that as per the directions  

of  this  Court,  the  concerned  bidders/respondents  have  

2

already submitted their revised financial bids within time.  

By order dated 17.06.2008, this Court extended the time  

till  15.09.2008 for complying with the directions of  this  

Court.  The applicant enumerated various steps that were  

taken  after  the  said  order  till  the  date  of  filing  of  the  

present  application.   By  pointing  out  those  

steps/deliberations,  the  applicant  has  prayed  for  

extension of time by another two months.  

4)   While  hearing  the  above  application,  in  view  of  

objection raised by the respondents,  particularly,  Jindal  

Strips  Ltd.,  on  direction  by  this  Court  learned  senior  

counsel  appearing  for  the  applicant  placed  

recommendations  of  the  Committee  constituted  for  

evaluating  the  bids  for  development  of  Tangarpada  

Chromite Deposit,  in the meeting held on 05.09.2008 &  

08.09.2008.  Apart from the above recommendations, the  

applicant  has  also  filed  additional  affidavit  highlighting  

their  stand for extension of  time.  In the same manner  

Jindal has also filed reply affidavit disputing the claim of  

the applicant. 3

5)   We  heard  Mr.  P.P.  Rao,  learned  senior  counsel  for  

applicant, IDCOL and Mr. T.N. Andurajuna, learned senior  

counsel for Jindal Strips Ltd.

6)   Before  considering  the  present  application  for  

extension of time on second occasion, it is useful to refer  

the directions issued by this Court in the judgment dated  

04.02.2008.   

“11. On the sole ground that the High Court had relied upon  extraneous  materials  and  has  arrived  at  unfounded  conclusions, in normal course we would have set aside the  order and asked the High Court to re-consider the matter.  But considering the passage of time and more particularly  the fact that the advertisement was issued in 2002 and on  the basis of materials on record, we dispose of the appeals in  the following terms:

1.  It shall be treated that the technical bids of all the three  parties are valid.

2.  The financial bids were submitted about five years back it  would be appropriate to permit the parties to submit revised  financial bids within three weeks.

3.   The  appropriate  and  authorized  Committee  of  IDCOL  shall  consider  the  technical  bids  and  the  financial  bids,  keeping in view the parameters of the advertisement, the NIT  and the best interest of the State.

12. It is needless to say the Committee examining the bids  shall take note of all relevant factors.  In case it is considered  appropriate and in the interest of the State, it shall be open  to the State Government to negotiate with the parties so that  the  best  interest  of  the  State  including  generation  of  the  revenue of the State and overall development of the State in  the relevant fields could be achieved.

13.  Since  the  matter  is  pending  since  long  it  would  be  desirable  for  the  State  Government  to  ensure  that  the  

4

technical bids and the revised financial bids to be submitted  within  three  weeks  as  directed  earlier,  be  evaluated  and  informed  decision  taken  by  end  of  June,  2008.   The  observations and conclusions about malafides of the officials  and their alleged favoritism stand quashed.

14. The appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent without  any order as to costs.”

7)  It is appropriate to point out that only IDCOL has filed  

an application for extension of time for compliance of the  

order  of  this  Court  dated  04.02.2008.   Mr.  T.N.  

Andurajuna, learned senior counsel for Jindal by pointing  

out the directions in paras 11, 12 and 13 submitted that  

the present decision of the State Government rejecting the  

bids of the respondents and authorizing IDCOL to exploit  

mining with Orissa Mining Corporation (OMC) is  not in  

accordance with the directions of this Court. But Mr. P.P.  

Rao, learned senior counsel submitted that the decision is  

well within the directions of this Court and it was taken in  

the  overall  interest  of  the  State  as  observed  in  the  

judgment of  this Court.    At  present,  we are concerned  

with the only issue i.e.,  whether there is any justifiable  

ground for extension of time as claimed by IDCOL.  On  

going  through  the  report  of  the  Committee,  ultimate  

5

decision  of  the  State  Government  and  the  details  

furnished for arriving at such decision, we are inclined to  

extend the time for carrying out the directions in the order  

dated 04.02.2008.  Inasmuch as, except the application  

for extension, no other petition or issue pending before us,  

we are of the view that there is no need to consider the  

objections raised by the respondents, particularly, Jindal.  

8)   On  going  through  the  materials  placed  by  the  

applicant, we intend to extend further time and we make  

it clear that we have not expressed anything either on the  

conduct of the IDCOL or State Government or the merits  

of the objection of the Jindal in this application.

9)   Without  expressing  any  opinion  on  the  above  

mentioned issues, we extend the time by 15.03.2010 for  

compliance.  The applications are disposed of accordingly.

...…………………………………J.                   (P. SATHASIVAM)  

...…………………………………J.           (H.L. DATTU)  

NEW DELHI;

6

FEBRUARY 1, 2010.           

7