TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 1435
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....08.04.2023 for recalling of the order dated 04.04.2023, issued by the respondent No. 3 was rejected. 3. By filing the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: (1) may be pleased to call for records, issue a rule calling upon the respondent authorities to show cause as to why a writ in the nature of mandamus be not issued directing the respondents to cancel, recall, or otherwise forbear from giving effect to the impugned letter bearing number PF/2025/Recovery/01 dated 11.06.2025, issued by the respondent No. 3 to the effect that the respondent authorities, despite acknowledging that the petitioner is not a defaulter, refused to recall the order dated 04.04.2023 and give the possession of Fatemabad Tea Estate to the petitioner, being the highest bidder in the auction process. And/or (2) why a writ in the nature of certiorari be not issued setting aside and quashing the impugned letter bearing number PF/2025/Recovery/01, dated 11.6.2025, issued by the respondent No. 3, specially to the effect that "However, in view of the sensitive nature of the matter and issuance of earlier communication dated 04.04.2023 and as the EMD....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....und, Pension Fund and Insurance Fund Scheme Act, 1955, (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1955), the respondent No. 3 appointed one Shri Yatendra Singh as manager of the tea estate, vide an agreement dated 04.01.2020. However, subsequently, Shri Rajesh Kumar Jalan was appointed as the manager to manage the tea estate, vide an agreement dated 22.12.2021 and to facilitate the recovery of outstanding arrears, including the provident fund dues. Thereafter, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 15(B)(1) of the said Act of 1955, the respondent No. 3 issued an e-auction sale notice dated 06.12.2022 for the sale of immovable properties belonging to the Fatemabad Tea Estate. In the said notice, the reserve price was fixed at Rs. 16,50,17,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Crores Fifty Lakhs Seventeen Thousand only) and the date and time for e-auction was scheduled on 09.01.2023 between 1:00 PM to 3:00 PM. However, subsequently, the respondents extended the date of e-auction till 14.03.2023. In response to the aforesaid e-auction sale notice dated 06.12.2022, the petitioner, being interested in purchasing the aforesaid Fatemabad Tea Estate, submitted its bid through e-auctio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the respondent authorities conveyed to the petitioner that the e-auction process had been temporarily put on hold due to certain technical reasons and the same will be resolved soon. The respondent No. 3 issued the letter dated 04.04.2023 bearing number PF/PG/2023/Rec.Off/10-11, to the petitioner, wherein it had been stated that upon scrutiny of the petitioner's bid and other relevant documents, it was found that the petitioner had failed to comply with the terms and conditions laid down in Clause XIV of the e-auction notice dated 6.12.2022 and accordingly, the petitioner's bid had been treated as canceled. The petitioner was verbally informed that one of its directors, Sri Rajesh Kumar Jalan, had entered into an agreement with respondent No. 3 for the management of the tea estate on 22.12.2021, and he, being a defaulter in payment of provident fund dues, the bid of the petitioner was canceled. The petitioner, vide a representation dated 08.04.2023, requested respondent No. 3 to reconsider and recall its decision to cancel the petitioner's bid under Clause XIV of the e-auction notice dated 06.12.2022 and to finalize the e-auction sale in favor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a period of three weeks from the receipt of the said order. The respondent No. 3, thereafter, disposed of the petitioner's representation dated 08.04.2023, vide a letter bearing No. PF/2025/Recovery/01, dated 11.06.2025, addressed to the petitioner, whereby the respondent had chosen not to recall the earlier cancellation order dated 04.04.2023 on the alleged ground that the matter was sensitive in nature and the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) had already been refunded to the petitioner. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the aforesaid communication dated 11.06.2025, has filed the instant writ petition. 5. This court, vide order dated 26.09.2025, issued notice to the respondents, however, no interim order, as prayed for by the petitioner, was passed in the instant case. 6. An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by respondent No. 2, which has been replied to by the petitioner by filing an affidavit-in-reply. 7. Mr. P. Deka, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the impugned letter bearing No. PF/2025/Recovery/01, dated 11.06.2025, purportedly disposing the petitioner's representation, is not only arbitrary and perverse, but....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of the garden, shall be treated as a secured creditor in the event of any e-auction issued during the validity of the agreement. He submits that the said agreement was valid for a period of three years and was subsisting at the time of issuance of the e-auction notice dated 06.12.2022. He submits that the contractual agreement dated 22.12.2021 between the respondents and one of the directors of the petitioner company, namely Rajesh Kumar Jalan, has nothing to do with the action of the respondents in issuing the communication dated 04.04.2023, vide which the petitioner's bid has been treated as cancelled. He submits that said Rajesh Kumar Jalan had executed the agreement in his personal capacity and as such, the petitioner and Rajesh Kumar Jalan does not stand in the same platform. He further submits that Rajesh Kumar Jalan had, in fact, filed a civil suit regarding his rights arising from the contractual agreement dated 22.12.2021 in his individual capacity, which is pending adjudication, and the same is altogether a different matter. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that instead of finalizing the sale of the said Tea Estate in favor of the petitioner, the res....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or the petitioner submits that unilateral refund of EMD is not stipulated in the terms and conditions of the e-auction and in fact, the refund implies that there is no default on the part of the bidder, i.e., the petitioner. Therefore, refund of EMD by the respondent authorities to the petitioner cannot be a ground for non-consideration of the bid of the petitioner. In this connection, he has relied on the case of Godrej Projects Development Ltd. Vs. Anil Karlekar & Ors., reported in (2025) 4 SCC 259. 12. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that it is not disputed that the petitioner emerged as the highest bidder in the e-auction held on 14.03.2023 and in terms of the request of the respondent authorities, the petitioner within the time stipulated had deposited 25% of the bid amount and the same was accepted by the respondent. He submits that after such acceptance of the bid amount which signifies acceptance of the petitioner's eligibility, the respondent cannot deny the right of the petitioner in the bid and the respondent is estopped from subsequently questioning the eligibility of the petitioner. 13. The learned counsel submits that a new ground ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ho was working as a manager of the garden in issue and the petitioner company are two different legal entities and only because Sri Rajesh Kumar Jalan is a director of the petitioner company, any deeds or activities of Rajesh Kumar Jalan done in personal capacity cannot be equated with that of the petitioner company. 16. To be precise, the learned counsel has submitted that if there is any default made by the aforesaid Rajesh Kumar Jalan, the same cannot be said to have been committed by the petitioner company and therefore, the petitioner company cannot be termed as a defaulter in terms of Clause XIV of the e-auction notice. The other major point which has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that of taking new grounds by the respondent authorities in their affidavit-in-opposition, i.e., the collusion or cartelization between the petitioner company and the other bidder and that the relevant date whereon the PF dues had been cleared by Rajesh Kumar Jalan was subsequent to the e-auction held on 14.03.2023. The learned counsel has submitted that these grounds were not mentioned in the impugned cancellation order dated 04.04.2023 and these are afterthoughts whic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 3 submits that upon scrutiny of the writ petitioner's bid and other relevant documents, it was found that the writ petitioner had defaulted in payment towards PF contribution amount payable for the period of March, 2022 to December, 2022 and the aforesaid default dues were cleared by the writ petitioner only on 22-03-2023, vide cheque dated 18-03-2023, which was subsequent to the date of e-auction dated 14-03-2023. He submits that the last date of submission of bid was 09-03-2023 and the date of e-auction was 14-03-2023 and therefore, the petitioner cleared his default due amount only on 22-03-2023, vide a cheque dated 18-03-2023, which is surely subsequent to the date of e-auction, i.e., 14-03-2023 and therefore, the petitioner was a defaulter as he had not cleared his pending dues towards PF contribution for the period of March, 2022 to December, 2022 and therefore, the petitioner was in clear violation of the terms and conditions laid down in Clause XIV of e-auction notice dated 06-12-2022. He submits that the information regarding the defaulter status of the writ petitioner was immediately communicated to the higher authority, vide letter No. PF/IPC/2023/Rec.Off/452-453, d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itioner can be very well be termed as a defaulter for the purpose of Clause XIV of the e-auction notice. He submits that since the petitioner is a defaulter in payment of PF dues, the petitioner's eligibility has been rightly negated by the respondent authorities. 21. The learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 & 3 submits that though the petitioner has contended that in the letter dated 11-06-2025, the respondent No. 3 had specifically stated that the office did not find any conclusive material to suggest a continuing disqualification on the part of the petitioner under Clause XIV of the e-auction notice dated 14-03-2023, the same has been done due to the fact that on the date of issuance of the letter dated 11-06-2025, there was no continuing default by the petitioner or Shri Rajesh Kumar Jalan. He submits that since the PF dues had been cleared by Shri Rajesh Kumar Jalan on 22-03-2023, there was no continuing default and therefore, there was no wrong committed by the respondent No. 3 by stating so. 22. The learned counsel further submits that no new ground has in fact, been brought in by the respondents in its affidavit-in-opposition filed by it. He submits that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nding purchaser/bidder shall not be defaulter of any sort with any Provident Fund Organization, and further, there shall not be any criminal case pending against the intending purchaser/bidder of against his firm/company (declaration to be furnished)." 26. The date of bid submission was mentioned as 06.01.2023 up to 12:00 noon and the date and time of e-auction was mentioned as 09.01.2023, 1:00 PM to 3:00 PM. However, it is not disputed that the auction was, in fact, held on 14.03.2023. 27. In response to the aforesaid e-auction sale notice dated 06.12.2022, the petitioner, being interested in purchasing the Fatemabad Tea Estate, submitted its bid through e-auction platform quoting an amount of Rs. 16,65,17,000/-, whereas the other bidder, namely, Panther Dealcom Private Limited, had also submitted its bid quoting an amount of Rs. 16,63,17,000/- only. Therefore, it is not in dispute that the petitioner became the highest bidder which is apparent from the auction result which is available in the domain, namely, property sale auctiontiger.net, which provided that the auction was held on 14.03.2023 at 13:00 hours. 28. It is also not in dispute that after the aforesaid e-aucti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s well as from 1st January, 2023 to 14th March, 2023. It is also seen that the aforesaid profit and loss account has been attested by a seal of the company, the petitioner company. Along with the aforesaid letter, 3 cheques in favor of ATEPFO have been issued by the petitioner company, signed by the authorized signatory-cum-director, totaling to an amount of Rs. 4,16,29,250/- as that being the 25% of the quoted rate for the Fatemabad Tea Estate quoted by the petitioner company. The contents of the aforesaid letter dated 17.03.2023 being relevant are provided herein below: - "Snowfall Agro Products Private Limited (CIN:UO1110WB2018PTC228685) Corp.Office: House No. -17, Gayatri Kunj, Chitralekha Lane, Supermarket, Dispur, Guwahati-781006. To, DATE: 17.03.2023 The Recovery Officer Α.Τ.Ρ.Ε.F.O Nidhi Bhawan, Guwahati (Assam) Ref: - Your Letter no. 1) PF/(R)/2023/K-008/6949-51 Dtd-14/03/2023 2) PF/1PG/2023/Rec.-Off./446-47 Dtd-15/03/2023. Sub: E-Auction Dtd-14/03/2023 in regarding to immovable property of Fatemabad Tea Estate Sir, With reference to above subject, we beg to inform you th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 3 to the petitioner company on 17.03.2023, the petitioner company had already deposited the aforesaid 25% of the quoted rate, vide its letter dated 17.03.2023. Subsequently, by the impugned letter dated 04.04.2023, issued by the respondent No. 3 to Shri Rajesh Kumar Jalan, Director, Snowfall Agro Products Private Limited, it was informed that on scrutiny of its bid and other relevant documents, it was found that the petitioner had failed to comply with the terms and conditions as envisaged in Clause XIV of the e-auction notice as on date of the e-auction, and as such, its bid for sale of the properties of Fatemabad Tea Estate held on 14.03.2023 had been treated as canceled on the aforesaid ground. 33. Interestingly, on perusal of the letter dated 17.03.2023, issued by the petitioner company on its letterhead, it is seen that reconciliation of the accounts up to 14.03.2023 to ascertain the adjustment and payment of other modalities with mutual understanding to close all the issues related to Fatemabad Tea Estate as per the books of account of the company, and therefore, the investment made by the company in the Fatemabad Tea Estate has been mentioned in the letter. It is also me....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ide its letter dated 11.06.2025 disposed of its representation, in terms of the order or direction of the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court, wherein it had mentioned that the office had no conclusive material to suggest a continuing disqualification on the petitioner's part under Clause XIV of the e-auction notice dated 14.03.2023. It had also mentioned that in view of the sensitive nature of the matter, the issuance of earlier communication dated 04.04.2023 and as the EMD had already been refunded, the order dated 04.04.2023 was not recalled. 38. From the above letter, it is seen that the order dated 04.04.2023 had not been recalled by the respondent authorities. However, it had mentioned that there was no continuing disqualification on part of the petitioner company and this was for the very reason that the petitioner company had already cleared its PF dues by 22.03.2023, and therefore, on the date of issuance of the letter dated 11.06.2025, there was no continuing default. Therefore, taking into the entire aspects of the matter and having found that there was a default committed by the petitioner company in terms of Clause XIV of the e-auction sale notice dated 06.12.2022, this ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....zation also seems to be involved in the instant case and therefore, the respondent authorities have rightly rejected the bid of the respondent bidder No. 2 as well as the petitioner company due to the facts mentioned in the letter dated 04.04.2023 as well as due to the apparent collusion that has come to the notice of this Court. 42. As far as the contention of the petitioner that new facts have been brought in the affidavit-in-opposition, the case of Assistant General Manager, SBI & Anr. (supra) can be referred to, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that where larger public interest is involved and in such a situation, additional grounds can be looked into to examine the validity of an order. In this connection, para 34, 36, and 38 being relevant are extracted herein below: - "34. A question would obviously arise for our answer, having regard to the Constitution Bench decision in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner and the larger Bench decisions of this Court in Commissioner of Police v. Gordhandas Bhanji and Opto Circuits (India) Ltd. v. Axis Bank, as to whether, a court can uphold an order rejecting an applicant's claim based on a ground ap....