Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA
Parties : Snowfall Agro Products Pvt Limited, A private limited company duly incorporated under the provisions of Indian Companies Act, Kolkata Versus The State Of Assam, Represented by the Commissioner & Secretary, Department of Labour Welfare & Employment, Guwahati & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: P. Deka, Advocate. For the Respondents: P. Nayak, G. Bokolial, Advocate.
Date of Judgment : 23-06-2026
Head Note :-
the said Act of 1955 - Section 15(B)(1) -
Comparative Citation:
2026 GAU-AS 9046,
Judgment :-
Judgment & Order (Cav):
1. Heard Mr. P. Deka, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. G. Bokolial, the learned Junior Government Advocate for respondent No. 1 and Mr. P. Nayak, the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, i.e., Snowfall Agro Industries Private Limited, assailing the impugned letter bearing No. PF/2025/Recovery/01, dated 11.06.2025, issued by the respondent No. 3, i.e., the Recovery Officer, Assam Tea Employees Provident Fund Organization, Assam, whereby the application filed by the petitioner dated 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 has already been refunded, the order dated 04.04.2023 is not recalled."
And/or
(3) why a writ in the nature of certiorari shall not be issued to set aside/quash the impugned communication bearing No. PF/PG/2023/Rec.Off/10-11, dated 04.04.2023, issued by the respondent No. 3 by way of which the bid of the petitioner was illegally cancelled.
And/or
(4) why a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondent authorities to hand over the management of the Fatemabad Tea Estate to the petitioner, in view of the admission made in the impugned letter bearing No. PF/2025/Recovery/01, dated 11.06.2025, issued by the respondent No. 3 that the petitioner does not suffer from any disqualification and is not a defaulter.
And/or
(5) hold the respondents' refusal to restore possession of Fatemabad Tea Estate to the petitioner, despite acknowledging that the petitioner is neither disqualified nor a defaulter, is arbitrary, discriminatory, and in violation of fundamental rights.
And/or
(6) pass such further order or other order(s) as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper.
4. The facts giving rise to the instant writ petition are summarized herein below: -
The petitioner is a private limited company duly incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, with its registered office located in Kolkata and its corporate office situated in Guwahati, Assam.
In the district of Baksa, within the Bodoland Territorial Autonomous Districts (BTAD), a tea estate, namely, Fatemabad Tea Estate, owned by M/s. Choudhury Tea and Agro Industries Private Limited, having defaulted grossly in payment of provident fund (PF contributions), and other statutory dues, the authorized officer acting under the provisions of the Assam Tea Plantations Provident Fund Scheme Act, 1955, issued a certificate declaring that a sum of Rs. 3,75,69,556.53/- (Rupees Three Crores Seventy-Five Lakhs Sixty-Nine Thousand Five Hundred Fifty-Six and Fifty-Three Paisa only) was outstanding as arrears against the tea estate.
In consequence thereof, the Recovery Officer, i.e., the respondent No. 3 herein, issued a notice of attachment dated 05.12.2017, thereby attaching the aforesaid tea estate.
In terms of the provisions of Assam Tea Plantations Provident Fund, 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-auction platform, quoting an amount of Rs. 16,65,17,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Crores Sixty-Five Lakhs Seventeen Thousand only). Besides the petitioner, another party, namely, Panther Dealcom Private Limited, had also submitted its bid by quoting an amount of Rs. 16,63,17,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Crores Sixty-Three Lakhs Seventeen Thousand only). On closure of the bidding process, it was revealed that the petitioner and the aforesaid company, i.e., Panther Dealcom Private Limited, were the only two participants in the e-auction and the petitioner emerged as the highest bidder, which could be evident from the webpage containing the e-auction report and auction summary as published by the respondents.
After the aforesaid process, the respondent No. 3, vide its letter dated 15.03.2023, informed the petitioner that its bid in respect of the e-auction for Fatemabad Tea Estate had been evaluated as the highest bid at the quoted amount of Rs. 16,65,17,000/- and the petitioner was directed to deposit 25% of the quoted amount, i.e., Rs. 4,16,29,250/- (Rupees Four Crores Sixteen Lakhs Twenty-Nine Thousand Two Hundred Fifty only), within a period of 48 hours.
In terms of the aforesaid letter dated 15.03.2023, the petitioner, vide its communication dated 17.03.2023, deposited an amount of Rs. 4,16,29,250/-, being 25% of the quoted bid amount, through the following cheques: -
(i) Cheque No. 108056 dated 17.03.2023 drawn on Federal Bank for Rs. 1,16,29,250/-;
(ii) Cheque No. 108057 dated 17.03.2023 drawn on Federal Bank for Rs. 1,50,00,000/-;
(iii) Cheque No. 108058 dated 17.03.2023 drawn on Federal Bank for Rs. 1,50,00,000/-.
However, on the very same date, i.e., 17.03.2023, the respondent no. 3 informed the petitioner that the e-auction process for the sale of the properties of Fatemabad Tea Estate had been put on hold due to certain technical reasons and advised the petitioner not to deposit the 25% of the quoted bid amount. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the respondent authorities with requests to finalize the sale of Fatemabad Tea Estate in its favor since the petitioner had become the highest bidder and also due to the fact that the petitioner had already complied with the request made by the respondent No. 3 by his letter dated 15.03.2023 and thereby, deposited the 25% of the bid amount, i.e., Rs. 4,16,29,250/-. However, 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 of the petitioner.
On 26.04.2023, the respondent authorities refunded the earnest money to the petitioner through RTGS mode directly to the petitioner's account, to which, on 28.04.2023, the petitioner submitted an objection regarding the aforesaid refund as the same being done without any intimation or communication to the petitioner.
Since no response was received as against the representation dated 08.04.2023 filed by the petitioner from the respondent authorities, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court bearing W.P.(C) No. 2340 of 2023, praying for quashing and/or cancellation of the communication dated 04.04.2023 and also prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities to finalize the e-auction sale of Fatemabad Tea Estate in favor of the petitioner.
The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court on 10.05.2023, directing the respondent No. 3 to examine and take a reasoned decision on the petitioner's representation dated 08.04.2023 within a period of one month from the date of the order.
The Hon’ble Gauhati High Court further directed that till such time a final decision is taken by respondent No. 3, the auction sale of the Fatemabad Tea Estate shall not be finalized in favor of any other party.
The petitioner had duly served the order dated 10.05.2023 upon respondent No. 3, which was duly received by respondent No. 3 on 22.05.2023. However, respondent No. 3 did not take any decision nor communicated any outcome to the petitioner till date. The petitioner, in fact, had submitted several reminders to respondent No. 3, urging compliance of the directions issued by the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court. Some of the reminders submitted by the petitioner were of 10.06.2023 and 10.12.2024.
Faced with the aforesaid indifferent attitude from the respondent authorities, the petitioner approached the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court again by way of filing W.P.(C) No. 2383/2025, seeking enforcement and appropriate direction in respect to the representation/reminders made by the petitioner between 10.06.2023 to 10.12.2024.
The Hon’ble Gauhati High Court, vide its order dated 14.05.2025, disposed of the W.P.(C) No. 2383/2025 once again directing the respondent No. 3 to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 08.04.2023 within 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 it appears to have been issued with clear mala fide intent. He submits that, on one hand, the respondent unequivocally admits that there is no conclusive material to hold the petitioner disqualified under clause XIV of the e-auction notice, and at the same time, on the other hand, despite such admission, they refused to restore the allotment or recall the cancellation solely on the ground that the EMD has been refunded. He submits that such two different stands cannot stand together and be legally sustained. He submits that the other ground taken by the respondents about the sensitivity of the matter is untenable in law and the same portrays a deliberate strategy to deprive the petitioner of its rightful claim to the Fatemabad Tea Estate. He submits that no record has been brought on by the respondents about any sensitivity in the matter. He submits that mere arbitrary assumption of respondent No. 3 that the matter is sensitive cannot be used as a ground to deprive the petitioner of its legitimate right to get the allotment of Fatemabad Tea Estate. He submits that if the basis for cancellation, i.e., the alleged disqualification, no longer survives, the cancellation order must necessarily fall and the process must revert to its lawful culmination in favor of the highest bidder, i.e., the petitioner. The learned counsel submits that the refund of EMD was made on 26.04.2023 unilaterally by the respondents immediately after issuing an illegal cancellation order. He submits that the aforesaid refund was made through RTGS mode directly to the petitioner's account without taking any consent or communication from the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner immediately objected to the aforesaid transaction through the petitioner's letter dated 28.04.2023. He submits that such an unilateral refund of EMD cannot be used as a ground to deny the petitioner of the fruits of public auction, wherein the petitioner has been declared as the highest bidder.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that aforesaid Rajesh Kumar Jalan, in his individual capacity, was entrusted with the management of Fatemabad Tea Estate pursuant to an agreement dated 22.12.2021. As per Clause 18 of the said agreement, it was expressly recorded that the aforesaid Rajesh Kumar Jalan or his sister concern, having invested significant capital towards the revival and development 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 respondent No. 3 had acted in a wholly arbitrary, mala fide, unfair, unreasonable and capricious manner by issuing the communication dated 04.04.2023, through which the respondent No. 3 stated that upon scrutiny of the petitioner's bid and other relevant documents, it was found that petitioner had failed to comply with the terms and conditions laid down in Clause XIV of the e-auction notice dated 06.12.2022 and accordingly, the petitioner's bid had been treated as cancelled. He submits that had the petitioner indeed failed to comply with the said aforesaid clause, as mentioned in the letter dated 04.04.2023, the e-tendering platform would have automatically disqualified the bid at the initial stage itself and the system would not have permitted the petitioner to submit the bid up to the final stage. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner was verbally informed that one of its directors, Shri Rajesh Kumar Jalan, had entered into an agreement with respondent No. 3 for management of the Tea Estate on 22.12.2021 and he is a defaulter in payment of provident fund dues and based on the aforesaid, the petitioner's bid was cancelled. He submits that such stand taken by the respondent authorities is arbitrary, illegal and mala fide. He submits that the petitioner, being an artificial legal entity with distinct independent rights and liabilities, cannot be held accountable for the actions or inactions of one of its directors in its individual capacity. He further submits that the aforesaid Rajesh Kumar Jalan was, in fact, not a defaulter and all the liabilities of provident fund had been cleared by the aforesaid Rajesh Kumar Jalan. Therefore, neither the petitioner nor Shri Rajesh Kumar Jalan can legally be treated as defaulter in respect of the provident fund dues.
10. In support of his submission that Rajesh Kumar Jalan, though a director of the petitioner company, he is a different legal entity altogether and he cannot be equated with the petitioner company, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following cases: -
1. Ram Chand & Sons Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kanhayalal Bhargava, reported in AIR 1966 SC 1899/1966 O Supreme (SC) 94.
2. Sanjay Dutt Vs. State of Haryana, reported in 2025 O Supreme (SC) 37.
3. Salomon Vs. A. Salomon and Company, reported in 1897 AC 22 (HL).
11. The learned counsel for 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 has been taken by the respondent authorities in their affidavit-in-opposition wherein they have alleged a collusion or cartelization by the petitioner along with the other bidder. The learned counsel submits that the aforesaid allegation of cartelization or collusion is simply an afterthought which has been raised by the respondents in their affidavit-in-opposition for the first time. He submits that as far as the allegation of collusion and cartelization is concerned, no opportunities have been afforded to the petitioner to submit or explain its stand. Therefore, he submits that the aforesaid new ground cannot be taken at a later stage by the respdnent authorities deviating from its earlier stand as mentioned in the letter dated 04.04.2023.
14. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that another new ground which has been taken by the respondent authorities in their affidavit-in-opposition is the so-called relevant date. Relevant date whereby the respondent authorities have contended that Mr. Rajesh Kumar Jalan, though had deposited the provident fund dues, the same was not deposited before the date of e-auction that was held on 14.03.2023. He submits that this is also a new ground which has been brought up by the respondent authorities in their affidavit-in-opposition which cannot be allowed at such a later stage deviating from its initial ground of refusal mentioned in the letter dated 04.04.2023. He submits that respondent No. 3 has specifically acknowledged that there was no continuing disqualification on the part of the aforesaid Rajesh Kumar Jalan. Therefore, the contention that the petitioner stood automatically disqualified on the date of bid submission or on the date of e-auction is wholly untenable, especially due to the fact that when the official e-auction portal permitted participation and the respondent authorities themselves acted upon the bid. He submits that Clause XIV of e-auction notice pertains exclusively to the eligibility of the bidder and does not contemplate the disqualification of a company on account of the past administrative role of one of its directors. Therefore, the attempt to pierce the corporate veil without authority of law or factual foundation is impermissible.
15. In view of the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has primarily contended that aforesaid Rajesh Kumar Jalan who 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 which have been brought in at a later stage by the respondents in their affidavit-in-opposition and therefore, the same cannot be allowed to sustain.
17. As far as the new grounds are concerned, in support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the case of T.P. Senkumar, IPS Vs. Union of India and others, reported in 2017 (6) SCC 801.
18. On the other hand, Mr. P. Nayak, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submits that in terms of the e-auction sale notice dated 06.12.2022, the auction was held on 14.03.2023, wherein the petitioner company had emerged as the highest bidder and the same was communicated to the petitioner, vide its letter dated 15.03.2023. He submits that only two numbers of bidders had submitted their bids in the e-auction and along with the petitioner, another bidder, namely, Panther Dealcom Private Limited had participated and became the second highest bidder. He submits that no other bidder had participated in the bidding process. He submits that on further scrutiny of the relevant documents submitted by the second highest bidder, i.e., Panther Dealcom Private Limited, it was found that Panther Dealcom Private Limited had deposited the EMD for the e-auction from the same bank belonging to the bidder number one, i.e., the petitioner, which is the same bank account used for depositing the EMD by the petitioner. He submits that this aspect of the matter clearly indicates that the two bidders, in collusion between them, deceived the authorities in the ATEPFO and wrongfully tried to secure the possession of Fatemabad Tea Estate, which is clearly in violation of Section 11 (2)(a)(3) of the Assam Public Procurement Act, 2017. He submits that after finding out the aforesaid collusion regarding depositing of EMD of both the bidders from the same bank account, the respondent No. 3, immediately communicated the said information to the higher authority, i.e., the authorized officer, ATEPFO, vide letter No. PF/IPG/2023/Rec.Off/452-453, dated 18.03.2023. He submits that on receipt of such information, the bid of the second highest bidder, i.e., the Panther Dealcom Private Limited was immediately rejected and canceled and same was communicated to Panther Dealcom Private Limited, vide letter No. PF/IPG/2023/REC.OFF/08-09 dated 04.04.2023.
19. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 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, dated 18-03-2023, by the respondent no. 3. In view of the aforesaid facts, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner failed to comply with the terms and conditions envisaged in Clause XIV of the e-auction dated 06-12-2022 and the petitioner being a defaulter on the last date of submission of the bid, i.e., on 09-03-2023 as well as on the date of e-auction, i.e., 14-03-2023, the petitioner's bid was rightly cancelled by the Recovery Officer (the respondent no. 3), vide its letter dated 04-04-2023.
20. He further submits that Shri Rajesh Kumar Jalan, who is one of the directors of the petitioner company, was already the administrator of Fatemabad Tea Estate by virtue of an agreement dated 22-12-2021 for a period of 3 years. He, in his capacity as the administrator of the tea garden, had defaulted in his payment towards PF contribution and his default was cleared only on 22-03-2023, which is subsequent to the date of e-auction dated 14-03-2023. The learned counsel, while referring to the cheque dated 18-03-2023, Annexure-D to the affidavit-in-opposition, submits that the aforesaid default amount, which was due by Shri Rajesh Kumar Jalan, was, in fact, paid by the petitioner company itself, which is apparent from the cheque dated 18-03-2023. In view of the aforesaid, though a director and a company are two distinct and independent entities, from the fact that the cheque was issued by the petitioner company, it is clear that Shri Rajesh Kumar Jalan is in the helm of affairs of the petitioner company and though legally both are distinct entities, it cannot be denied that both have in fact, acted for each other and the default payment is made on being authorized by the writ petitioner, i.e., the Snowfall Agro Products Private Limited. He submits that, in such situations, the courts can take into account the relevant facts and pierce the corporate veil and thereby, find out actually who is behind such action. He submits that the fact that the default PF due was paid from the account of the company, i.e., the petitioner, makes it clear that the company and Shri Rajesh Kumar Jalan acted in unison and not as different legal entities. Therefore, in the instant case, he submits that the default committed by Rajesh Kumar Jalan, who is the director of the petitioner company and since the default was cleared by the petitioner company, the petitioner 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 clause for disqualification in the event of default in payment of PF dues is already there in the e-auction notice. He submits that since the disqualification clause is already there and on the date of the e-auction, i.e., on 14.03.2023, the petitioner was in default of payment of PF dues, the bid of the petitioner has been rightly rejected by the respondent no. 3. He submits that only because that ground was not mentioned in the letter dated 04.04.2023, the same cannot be fatal and that cannot be termed as a new ground as the same was there in the e-auction notice dated 06.12.2022. He submits that immediately after getting notice of the fact that the bidder no. 2, i.e., Panther Dealcom Private Limited has also deposited the EMD from the same bank account number as of the bidder no. 1, i.e., the petitioner, the same was immediately communicated by the respondent no. 3 to the higher authorities, vide its letter dated 18.03.2023 and subsequently, on 04.04.2023, the bid of the aforesaid Panther Dealcom Private Limited was also cancelled. Therefore, he submits that these are not new grounds, but these facts were available at the time when the impugned letter dated 04.04.2023 was issued to the petitioner. Therefore, he submits that these cannot be termed as new grounds brought in by way of an affidavit-in-opposition. He further submits that such existing grounds which are already available, if they are not mentioned in the impugned letter, that cannot be termed as fatal, as these grounds can be taken into consideration by the respondent authorities.
23. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has referred to the case of Assistant General Manager, SBI & Another Vs Tanya Energy Enterprises, through its Managing Partner Shri Alluri Lakshmi Narasimha Verma (Civil Appeal No. 11134 of 2025, arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 2456 of 2025), decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on September 15, 2025.
24. This Court has heard the submissions made by the counsel appearing for the respective parties and has also considered the cases that have been relied on by the respective counsel.
25. It is seen that an e-auction sale notice was issued by Assam Tea Employees Provident Fund Organization on 06.12.2022 and as per the terms and conditions mentioned therein, a specific condition, i.e., Clause XIV has been included which provides as follows: -
"The intending 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-auction, the respondent No. 3, vide its letter dated 15.03.2023, bearing No. PF/IPG/2023/Rec.Off/446-47, intimated the petitioner that it had become the H1 bidder and in view of the above, the petitioner was advised to deposit 25% of its quoted rate, i.e., Rs. 4,16,29,250/- into ATEPFO Account No. 10821404315 with SBI, Dispur Branch, or Account No. 0002050007510 with PNB, ATPPF Branch, Guwahati, within 48 hours from that day, with due intimation to the undersigned. It is also an admitted fact that a Deed of Agreement was entered into between the Additional PF Commissioner, Head Office at Guwahati, Assam Tea Employees Provident Fund Organization and Shri Rajesh Kumar Jalan as Shri Rajesh Kumar Jalan was desirous to manage and run the Fatemabad Tea Estate. As per the agreement, Shri Rajesh Kumar Jalan was appointed for smooth running to the aforesaid Tea Estate for a period of three years, w.e.f. 01.01.2022, subject to renewal under such terms and conditions mutually agreed. As per the aforesaid agreement, the PF, DLI, gratuity dues along with other statutory dues shall be the liability of the manager, i.e., Rajesh Kumar Jalan.
29. It is also seen from the records that Rajesh Kumar Jalan is also one of the directors of the petitioner company who participated in the e-auction sale and became the highest bidder. This fact is also not in dispute that the aforesaid Rajesh Kumar Jalan had defaulted in payment of PF contributions amount payable for the period of March, 2022 to December, 2022 and the said defaulting dues were cleared only on 22.03.2023, vide a cheque dated 18.03.2023 which is subsequent to the date of e-auction dated 14.03.2023.
30. Now, the question comes herein whether Rajesh Kumar Jalan being a director of the petitioner company being in default of payment of PF dues can be stated as a default committed by the petitioner company. In this connection, it may be relevant herein to refer to the letter dated 17.03.2023, issued by the petitioner company to the Recovery Officer, i.e., that is the respondent no. 3.
31. It is seen from the aforesaid letter that the letter has been issued in the letterhead of the petitioner company, which has been signed by Rajesh Kumar Jalan as one of the directors of the company. The letter also contained the profit and loss account of Fatemabad Tea Estate for the period of 1st January, 2022 to 31st December, 2002 as 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: -
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 that as per our request to reconcile the accounts of Fatemabad Tea Estate up to 14/03/2023 was approved and CA Rajesh Poddar & Associates was appointed by your esteemed organization to reconcile the accounts up to 14/03/2023 to ascertain the adjustment and payment of other modilities with mutual understanding to close all the issue related to Fatemabad Tea Estate as per our books of account the following amount was invested by us, as per our enclosed account details
1. Up to 31/12/2022-Rs. 17,49,35,696/-68 + Interest.
2. Up to 14/03/2023-Rs. 1,08,79,500/-24 + Interest.
Total Rs. 18,58,15,196/-68+ Interest
In this connection we are enclosing herewith the following cheques: -
But sir as per our accounts details our investment is more than the quoted price for the above garden, Hence Audit of accounts which will take few days so after the Audit we have to decide the further course of actions to come to a conclusion that how we should move ahead with the Auction process as and how our amount will be adjusted in the deal, till that time we request to hold the cheque to lodge.
Therefore, we request your good self-kindly consider our abovementioned request and oblige.
Thanking you,
Yours Faithfully.
Snowfall Agro Products Pvt Ltd (RAJESH KUMAR JALAN) DIRECTOR
Copy to: Commissioner/Secretary, A.T.E.P.F.P. Nidhi Bhawan
Enclosed: 1) Balance sheet (01.01.2022 to 31.12.2022)
32. By letter dated 14.07.2023, issued by the Recovery Officer, i.e., the respondent no. 3, to the Director, Snowfall Agro Products Private Limited, it was intimated to the petitioner company that due to certain technical grounds, the e-auction process for sale of the properties of Fatemabad Tea Estate was kept on hold, and therefore, the petitioner company was advised not to deposit 25% of its quoted rate that is Rs. 4,16,29,250 into ATEPFO account. It is seen that though the aforesaid letter was written by the respondent No. 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 mentioned that as per their account details, their investment is more than the quoted price for the above garden. It was also mentioned that audit accounts will take few days to close. So, after the audit, they have to decide the further course of actions to come to a conclusion that how they should move ahead with the auction process and how their account will be adjusted in the deal, till that time, they requested to hold the check to lodge.
34. From the aforesaid contents of the letter, it is very clear that though the aforesaid Deed of Agreement dated 22nd December, 2021 was signed by Rajesh Kumar Jalan with the Additional PF Commissioner, Assam Tea Employees Provident Fund Organization, actually, the Fatemabad Tea Estate was looked after and managed by the petitioner company itself.
35. Since the petitioner company has been looking after and managing the tea garden in the name of Rajesh Kumar Jalan, the director of the petitioner company, this court is of no doubt that, in fact, the petitioner company itself has been managing and looking after the Fatemabad Tea Estate. Therefore, this court is of the considered opinion that that since there was a default in payments of provident fund to Assam Tea Employees Provident Fund Organization as on the date of e-auction sale, the petitioner company cannot escape from being termed as defaulter in terms of Clause XIV of the e-auction notice dated 06.12.2022.
36. In view of the aforesaid finding, there is no problem for this court to negate the submission of the learned counsel of the petitioner that Shri Rajesh Kumar Jalan and the petitioner company are two different legal entities, and therefore, the default committed by Rajesh Kumar Jalan cannot be termed as a default committed by the petitioner company in the instant case.
37. Now, the question comes as to whether the respondents have taken any new grounds for rejection of the bid of the petitioner. It is seen that in the letter dated 04.04.2023 itself, the petitioner company was intimated by the respondent authorities about the violation of the provisions of Clause XIV of the e-auction notice, and therefore, the same was canceled. Since the petitioner company had approached this court and this court had directed the respondent authorities to give a reasoned order after consideration of the case of the petitioner company, the respondent authorities, vide 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 court is of the considered opinion that though the additional grounds of sensitivity of the matter and EMD already being refunded, had been taken as additional grounds, the primary ground of rejection, vide letter dated 04.04.2023 existed and which seems to be a valid one to this Court.
39. Coming back to the issue of the ground of collusion and cartelization is concerned, that the aforesaid ground has been taken in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 2. It is seen from the letter dated 18.03.2023, vide No. PF/IPG/2023/Rec.Off/452-453, that the respondent No. 3 had written to the Authorized Officer, ATEPF Organization, wherein it had been specifically mentioned that on scrutiny of relevant documents, the second highest bidder, it appeared that they had also transferred the EMD from the same bank account belonging to the Snowfall Agro Private Limited, the petitioner. It had been specifically mentioned therein that the second highest bid could not be accepted since they had also transferred the EMD from the account of Snowfall Agro Private Limited. In that connection, the account details and PAN card and other relevant of EMD submission receipt have been annexed to the affidavit in opposition filed by the respondent No. 2. Accordingly, vide letter dated 04.04.2023, the respondent No. 3 had intimated the Director of Panther Dealcom Private Limited about cancellation of their bid as the bidder No. 2.
40. From the documents as aforesaid, which have been annexed in the affidavit-in-opposition, it is apparent that the EMD amounts of both the petitioner company and the bidder No. 2, i.e., Dealcom Private Limited, had been deposited from the same bank account. Therefore, the collusion between the two bidders cannot be ruled out and in fact, the same is apparent on the face of the record which have been submitted along with the affidavit-in-opposition.
41. This Court has also gone through the affidavit-in-reply filed by the petitioner and it is seen that as far as collusion or cartelization is concerned, the petitioner, though has denied the allegation of collusion or cartelization as an afterthought and raised for the first time in the affidavit-in-opposition, however, did not deny the fact that the EMD amounts for both the petitioner company and the bidder No. 2 were deposited from the same bank account. Therefore, a collusion or cartelization 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 appearing from the records of the case which could have been but has not been mentioned, if the grounds mentioned in such order of rejection are not found to be tenable?
36. Mohinder Singh Gill (supra) has been considered by this Court in All India Railway Recruitment Board v. K. Shyam Kumar. It has been held there that the principle laid down in Mohinder Singh Gill (supra) is not applicable where larger public interest is involved and in such a situation, additional grounds can be looked into, to examine the validity of an order. To the same effect is the decision in PRP Exports v. State of Tamilnadu. However, K. Shyam Kumar (supra) and PRP Exports (supra) have been considered in Moons Technologies Ltd. v. Union of India where it has been held in paragraph 102 by a coordinate Bench that there is no broad proposition that the law laid down in Mohinder Singh Gill (supra) will not apply where larger public interest is involved. The decisions in K. Shyam Kumar (supra) and P.R.P. Exports (supra) were distinguished on the ground that the coordinate Benches there had proceeded to consider subsequent materials that emerged for the purpose of validating the order under challenge.
38. The respective Benches in Commissioner of Police (supra), Mohinder Singh Gill (supra), Opto Circuits (India) Ltd. (supra) and Moons Technologies Ltd. (supra), in our reading, while mandating what has been noticed above was not required to and, as such, rightly did not go that far in establishing the principle that, in all cases coming before it, the court is necessarily bound to confine itself to the grounds mentioned in the administrative order under challenge and cannot look beyond such grounds at all. While the courts, in course of reviewing administrative orders, may not permit additional grounds not found within the four corners of the said order to be raised in an affidavit or in oral arguments, we are Inclined to the view that the factual narrative in such order and the documents referred to therein can certainly be considered together with the case set up in the writ petition, but in appropriate cases. Such cases could include a case, as the present, where the mentioned grounds are found to be untenable and, thus, unsustainable, but an alternative ground (appearing from the factual narrative in the order itself and/or from the records relevant thereto) is traceable which could have validly been mentioned as a ground to support the impugned rejection had there been a proper application of mind by the administrative authority. In all such cases, it would be open to the court to uphold it on such alternative ground subject, of course, to the affected party being put on notice and an opportunity to respond. This approach, which would prioritize fairness and justice over technicalities, does not run contrary to or inconsistent with the law laid down in the afore referred precedents.”
43. In view of the aforementioned principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as well as taking into account of the fact that apparent collusion in the bid has come to the fore, this court is of the considered opinion that the same cannot be brushed aside as a ground which has been taken at a later stage, though the aspect of collusion has been already recorded in its letter dated 18.03.2023 by the respondent No. 3. Therefore, this is an existing fact that the ground has already been there on record, but somehow, the same was not mentioned in the letter dated 04.04.2023. This court is of the considered opinion that the same cannot be termed as fatal taking into account of the fact that there is a clear violation of Clause XIV of the e-auction notice dated 06.12.2022.
44. It has been mentioned in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 2 that that presently, the zimma of the Fatimabad Tea Estate has been handed over to one Shri Om Prakash Singh, who is the authorized representative of the original owner of the garden, i.e., Choudhury Tea Agro Industries Private Limited.
45. After giving due consideration to the aforesaid facts and coming to the aforesaid findings, this court doesn't find any merit in the instant writ petition, and therefore, the same is dismissed.
