TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (3) TMI 373
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ondent Nos. 3 and 4 desire that present Writ Petition be transferred to Hon'ble Supreme Court. Same prayer is again reiterated today. This prayer is strongly opposed on the ground including challenging bona fides and real need of such postponement. Petitioner has then stressed on the financial repercussions which cannot be compensated. As to whether hearing should be stayed? 3. The question as to whether hearing of Writ Petition be postponed needs to be decided first, as if a Preliminary Objection. 4. On the point of need of postponement and intended application for transfer to Hon'ble Supreme Court, learned Asstt. Solicitor General Mr. Mishra has pointed out as follows :- (a) Two Wri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Solicitor General Mr. Mishra is not able to dispute the distinction on facts demonstrated by learned Sr. Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Dharmadhikari. 7. In the result, it is seen that there is no ground made out by the Respondents to stay the proceedings of present writ petition awaiting an intended application for transfer. This Court does not see any reason or impediment, whatsoever, in hearing and disposing of this petition. 8. Moreover, a long rope of about eleven weeks was given to these respondents to apply to Hon'ble Supreme Court for filing application for transfer, which they have so far failed to do. 9. Therefore, this Court rejects oral prayer for stay of hearing, and proceeds to hear the Writ Petition furtherance to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is to be done. (c) Perusal of Annex. A [page 28] reveals that 25000 metric tons of rice [Non-Basmati] is to be exported to South Africa through respondent No. 2- P.E.C. Ltd. (d) The tripartite agreement has been entered between P.E.C. Ltd., petitioner and the importer of South Africa on 10th July, 2009. (e) Chief Finance Manager of respondent No. 2 issued a letter of authorization addressing it to Asstt. Commissioner of Customs, Nagpur, announcing and communicating authorization in favour of petitioner to export 25000 metric tons of parboiled Non-Basmati rice against Directorate General of Foreign Trade Noti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... We have perused the guidelines. 16. It is seen that the object of the new guidelines is that the P.E.C., Ltd., should procure the rice only through Public Sector Undertakings and there will not be any associate exporter [any middleman] and procurement may also be done by tendering process etc. 17. The guidelines do not provide as to the manner in which contracts, which are half way through, should be dealt with. The guidelines do not provide if the earlier contract should be terminated, rescinded etc., and the manner in which the rice already procured and received for transportation be dealt with. Even during oral submissions, either learned Adv., for the respondent No. 2, or learned Asstt. Solicitor General is not in a positi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pon, cannot be done away otherwise than in the course of law. In this background, this Court finds that the action of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in directing holding back all the contracts for some time may have been prudent, however, the holding back cannot be done for indefinite period or in perpetuity. The communication sent by the respondent No. 2 directing withholding the contract or even directing the respondents to take back the rice is without any authority of law or even any support of the changed policy. 24. The relationship - subject matter is not fully contractual between two private parties. Respondent No. 2, who itself is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, is acting as an agency of the Central Gov....