M/S India Carbon Ltd. vs The Union Of India & Ors.

Heard Mr. G. N. Sahewalla, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioners in WP(C) No. 5703/2019, WP(C) No. 3882/2019 and WP(C) No. 3883/2019; and Mr. K. N. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioners in WP(C) No. 3880/2019 and WP(C) No. 5660/2019. Also heard Mr. D. K. Sarmah, learned Standing Counsel, Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOC), appearing for all the respondents in all the writ petitions.

The challenge made in these writ petitions is essentially to the action of the respondent authorities in fixing the floor price of Raw Petroleum Coke (RPC) in a manner allegedly contrary to the Guidelines dated 07.05.2012 issued by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India, and the order dated 30.05.2019 passed by this Court in I.A. (C) No. 1813/2019 in WP(C) No. 2966/2019 and I.A. (C) No. 1815/2019 in WP(C) No. 2971/2019. In WP(C) No. 3882/2019, WP(C) No. 3883/2019 and WP(C) No. 3880/2019, the petitioners have challenged the fixation of the floor price of RPC at Rs. 24,150/- and the e-auction held on 07.06.2019, whereas in WP(C) No. 5703/2019, the challenge is to the subsequent e-auction scheduled to be held on 07.08.2019 without finalisation of the floor price in accordance with the aforesaid Guidelines and the order passed by this Court. In WP(C) No. 5660/2019, the petitioners have challenged the e-auction notice dated 03.08.2019 for sale of 14,000 MT of RPC and the proposed e-auction scheduled for 07.08.2019, primarily on the ground that the floor price has not been fixed in terms of the aforesaid order of this Court. The petitioners have, accordingly, inter alia, prayed for quashing of the impugned e-auctions/e-auction notice and a direction to the respondent authorities to conduct fresh e-auctions after fixing the floor price of RPC in accordance with the applicable Guidelines and the directions issued by this Court.

Since all these writ petitions are interconnected and involve common questions of fact and law, the same are taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

The petitioners in the present batch of writ petitions are engaged in the manufacture of Calcined Petroleum Coke (CPC) and Electrode Carbon Paste (ECP), for which Raw Petroleum Coke (RPC) constitutes the principal raw material. The petitioner in WP(C) No. 3882/2019 and WP(C) No. 5703/2019 is M/s India Carbon Ltd., which came into existence in the year 1962 by setting up Asia's first Calcination Plant at Guwahati and subsequently established another Calcination Plant at Budge Budge, West Bengal, in the year 1969. The petitioner in WP(C) No. 3883/2019, namely, M/s Carbon Resources Pvt. Ltd., is also engaged in the manufacture and sale of CPC and ECP and has been providing employment to local people in Assam. The petitioner in WP(C) No. 3880/2019 and WP(C) No. 5660/2019 is M/s Guwahati Carbon Ltd. The petitioners procure RPC, inter alia, from the refineries of Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) situated in the State of Assam.

The case of the petitioners, in nutshell, is that due to acute shortage of RPC in the country and with a view to ensuring its equitable distribution and giving preference to local industries, the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India, issued Guidelines dated 07.05.2012. Under the said Guidelines, allocation of RPC was directed to be made through auction, with preference being given to local units, and the auction was to be restricted to units within the State. Subsequently, pursuant to the aforesaid Guidelines, the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, by communication dated 26.10.2012, directed that bids could be invited from both in-State and out-of-State customers. It was further provided that, for ensuring maximum revenue, the import parity price, after taking into account freight charges, quality differentials, marketing cost and margin and other necessary adjustments, was to be adopted as the floor price in the bidding process.

The petitioners allege that, despite the aforesaid Guidelines, the respondent authorities, particularly IOCL, proceeded to fix the floor price of RPC at an excessively high rate. In this connection, some similarly situated parties approached this Court by way of WP(C) No. 2966/2019 and WP(C) No. 2971/2019. In the said proceedings, this Court, by order dated 30.05.2019, passed in I.A. (Civil) No. 1813/2019 in WP(C) No. 2966/2019, and I.A. (Civil) No. 1815/2019 in WP(C) No. 2971/2019, directed the respondent authorities to ensure that the reserve price of RPC was fixed more or less at par with the other refineries of the State before commencement of the e-auction. However, the respondent authorities, in the e-auction held on 07.06.2019, fixed the reserve/floor price of RPC at Rs. 24,150/- per MT.

It is the contention of the petitioners that the aforesaid reserve/floor price was substantially higher than the rates prevailing in the other refineries within the State of Assam and was also not in conformity with the import parity price contemplated under the aforesaid Government Guidelines. Being aggrieved by the fixation of the said reserve/floor price at Rs. 24,150/- per MT and alleging violation of the Government Guidelines as well as the directions contained in the order dated 30.05.2019 passed by this Court, the petitioners-M/s India Carbon Ltd. & M/s Carbon Resources Pvt. Ltd. instituted WP(C) No. 3882/2019 and WP(C) No. 3883/2019, respectively.

Thereafter, the petitioner-M/s India Carbon Ltd. instituted WP(C) No. 5703/2019, stating that, despite the pendency of WP(C) No. 3882/2019, the respondent authorities had again issued a schedule for e-auction of 14,000 MT of RPC, proposed to be held on 07.08.2019, without formulating any pricing policy. In WP(C) No. 3882/2019, this Court, by order dated 12.06.2019, had directed that the e-tender process for allotment of RPC by Guwahati Refinery would be subject to the outcome of the said writ petition.

Similarly, the petitioner-M/s Guwahati Carbon Ltd. instituted WP(C) No. 3880/2019 challenging the action of the respondent authorities in fixing the floor price of RPC at Rs. 24,150/- per MT in the e-auction held on 07.06.2019. The petitioners therein alleged that the fixation of such price was arbitrary and contrary to the aforesaid Government Guidelines as well as the order dated 30.05.2019 passed by this Court, and further contended that they had been denied a level playing field vis-à-vis the other IOCL-controlled refineries in the State.

The same petitioners thereafter instituted WP(C) No. 5660/2019 challenging the e-auction notice dated 03.08.2019, whereby 14,000 MT of RPC was proposed to be sold through an e-auction scheduled for 07.08.2019. The grievance raised therein is that the respondent authorities had issued the said notice without fixing the floor price of RPC in terms of the direction of this Court dated 30.05.2019. The petitioners also relied upon the comparative price statements of IOCL-controlled refineries at Guwahati, Bongaigaon, Digboi and Barauni to contend that, while the RPC prices had remained broadly similar up to September 2018, there had been a substantial divergence in the prices applicable at the Guwahati Refinery as compared to the other refineries.

Accordingly, the petitioners contend that the fixation of the floor price of RPC by the respondent authorities and the subsequent e-auction notices were arbitrary, contrary to the applicable Government Guidelines and in disregard of the directions issued by this Court. Hence, these writ petitions.

It is submitted at the Bar that, in the interregnum, the auction processes for sale of RPC impugned in the present writ petitions have already been concluded. Therefore, no adjudication is required to be made so far as the auctions in question are concerned.

Mr. G. N. Sahewalla, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioners in WP(C) No. 5703/2019, WP(C) No. 3882/2019 and WP(C) No. 3883/2019, submits that the respondent authorities have acted in disregard of the Guidelines dated 07.05.2012 and 26.10.2012 issued by the Government of India while fixing the floor price of RPC. Referring to the comparative prices of Grade-A RPC produced at different refineries, he submits that, in the e-auction held on 07.06.2019, the price of Grade-A RPC produced at the Guwahati Refinery was fixed at Rs.24,150/- per MT, whereas the corresponding prices at the Bongaigaon and Barauni Refineries in the e-auctions held on 01.07.2019 and 02.07.2019 were Rs.20,160/- per MT and Rs.20,630/- per MT, respectively. He further submits that, in the subsequent e-auctions held on 12.07.2019 and 15.07.2019, the prices were further reduced to Rs.17,380/- per MT and Rs.16,640/- per MT, respectively, while the price of Grade-A RPC produced at the Digboi Refinery was fixed at Rs.17,290/- per MT and, in the e-auction held on 26.07.2019, the same was reduced to Rs.13,730/- per MT. Therefore, he submits that the price of Grade-A RPC produced at the Guwahati Refinery was substantially higher than the corresponding price at other refineries, which demonstrates the arbitrary and discriminatory manner in which the floor price has been fixed by the respondent authorities.

While referring to the policy decision dated 07.05.2012, learned Senior Counsel submits that the Government of India had specifically provided that, for ensuring maximum revenue, the import parity price, after taking into account freight charges, quality differentials, marketing cost and margin and other necessary adjustments, should be used as the floor price in the bidding process. However, the prices fixed by the respondent authorities do not conform to the said requirement. He further submits that a comparison of the prices prevailing at the different refineries would show that there has been an abnormal increase in the price of RPC produced at the Guwahati Refinery without any lawful justification and the base price fixed by the respondent authorities for RPC produced at the Guwahati Refinery was not in conformity with the import parity price.

Mr. Sahewalla, learned Senior Counsel, further submits that the respondent authorities, despite the aforesaid position and the order dated 30.05.2019 passed by this Court, proceeded to issue the schedule for e-auction of 14,000 MT of RPC proposed to be held on 07.08.2019, without formulating any proper pricing policy. He submits that this Court, by order dated 12.06.2019 passed in WP(C) No. 3882/2019, had already directed that the e-tender process for allotment of RPC by the Guwahati Refinery would be subject to the outcome of the said writ petition.

Learned Senior Counsel submits that the price of RPC at an exorbitant rate, without following any prescribed pricing policy, would seriously prejudice the petitioner's unit, which is already operating at substantially reduced capacity owing to the shortage and high cost of RPC. He submits that, being situated in Assam, the petitioner has no viable alternative source for procuring RPC and is also placed at a competitive disadvantage vis-à-vis the port-based calciners, whose freight costs are comparatively lower. If the impugned pricing mechanism is permitted to continue, the petitioner's unit may ultimately be driven to closure, affecting the livelihood of the local persons employed therein. Therefore, Mr. Sahewalla, learned Senior Counsel, submits that the action of the respondent authorities in fixing the price of RPC arbitrarily and excessively, without adhering to the Government Guidelines and the directions issued by this Court, is arbitrary, discriminatory and illegal.

Mr. K. N. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioners in WP(C) No. 3880/2019 and WP(C) No. 5660/2019, submits that the Government of India, by the Guidelines dated 07.05.2012, had provided for allocation of RPC through auction with preference to local units and further contemplated the import parity price as the floor price in the bidding process. However, despite the said Guidelines, there has been no uniformity in the pricing of RPC by the different refineries in the State, with the price fixed by the Guwahati Refinery being substantially higher than that prevailing at the Bongaigaon and Digboi Refineries.

Learned Senior Counsel submits that this Court, by order dated 30.05.2019 passed in I.A. (C) No. 1813/2019 in WP(C) No. 2966/2019 and I.A. (C) No. 1815/2019 in WP(C) No. 2971/2019, had directed the respondent IOCL to reconsider the reserve price of RPC for the immediate e-auction so as to ensure that it was more or less at par with the other refineries of the State and that the e-auction be commenced only after fixing the reserve price accordingly. However, in clear disregard of the order of this Court, the IOCL, Guwahati Refinery fixed the floor price at Rs. 24,150/- per MT in the e-auction held on 07.06.2019, whereas the floor price at the Digboi Refinery had been fixed at Rs. 15,400/- per MT.

Mr. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel, further submits that, while WP(C) No. 3880/2019 challenging the aforesaid fixation of the floor price has been pending before this Court, the respondent authorities issued the impugned e-auction notice dated 03.08.2019 for sale of 14,000 MT of RPC, without first reconsidering or re-fixing the floor price in terms of the order dated 30.05.2019. Thus, he submits that the impugned notice has been issued without any proper pricing policy and in violation of the aforesaid Guidelines and the directions of this Court. He further submits that the petitioners, being local purchasers dependent upon RPC for their manufacturing activities, would be seriously prejudiced if RPC is offered at an arbitrarily high price.

On the other hand, Mr. D. K. Sarmah, learned Standing Counsel, Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOC), appearing for the respondents, submits that the e-auction of RPC is conducted through M/s MSTC Limited, a Public Sector Undertaking, in accordance with the stipulated terms and conditions and the prescribed procedure. He submits that the floor price of RPC has been fixed in accordance with the Guidelines dated 07.05.2012 issued by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India, and that there has been no violation of any applicable guideline or notification in the matter of fixation of the floor price.

Learned Standing Counsel submits that fixation of the floor/reserve price in an e-auction is essentially a policy and commercial decision of the Corporation, which, being the owner of the material, is entitled to adopt a method which is considered to be in its overall commercial interest. He submits that the pricing of RPC is a highly technical subject and this Court, in the earlier round of litigation, vide judgment and order dated 06.02.2019 in WP(C) No. 491/2019 and WP(C) No. 478/2019 had itself observed that the Writ Court may not have the requisite expertise to venture into such matters. Therefore, the Court ought to restraint in interfering with the commercial decision of the Corporation merely because the petitioners consider the price to be on the higher side.

Mr. Sarmah, learned Standing Counsel, further submits that the petitioners had participated in the e-auction in question and had lifted the material and therefore cannot subsequently seek to challenge the price as excessive. The petitioners were under no obligation to participate in the auction if they considered the reserve price to be unviable. He submits that there is no material to demonstrate any actual pecuniary loss suffered by the petitioners, particularly when the price of their finished product, namely CPC, was sufficient to provide a reasonable margin.

Learned Standing Counsel submits that, pursuant to the subsequent policy framework governing sale of RPC, the Oil Marketing Companies have been permitted to frame their own systems and policies for sale of RPC, although the existing pricing mechanism has continued. The disclosure of the pricing mechanism would also affect the commercial interests of the Corporation. He submits that the comparative pricing of RPC produced at different refineries involves technical and commercial considerations which cannot appropriately be adjudicated in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Mr. Sarmah, therefore, submits that mere allegation that the floor/reserve price was fixed at a higher rate cannot furnish a ground for judicial interference with the commercial decision of the Corporation. He submits that the authority conducting the e-auction is the best judge of the valuation of its material and the prevailing economic and commercial conditions and a prospective bidder cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court for alteration or reduction of the financial terms merely on the ground that the same are onerous or commercially unviable. Therefore, he submits that no ground for interference is made out and the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.

In support of his submission, Mr. D. K. Sarmah, learned Standing Counsel, Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOC), has relied on the following decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court:

Mr. D. K. Sarmah, learned Standing Counsel, Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOC), further relied on a judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 22.01.2009, passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 4892/2008 (Hakam Singh & ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.) to contend that the auctioning of RPC as per the policy by fixing the reserve price is a policy matter and the Corporation, being owner, has a right to choose the best method in overall interest. A mandamus cannot be issued to the respondents to re-fix the reserve price as it would be in the discretion of the Corporation to decide about the manner of holding auction and for fixing the reserve price. If any person finds that the reserve price fixed is excessive, it is open for him not to participate in the auction.

Due consideration has been extended to the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

From the pleadings of the parties and the materials placed on record, the controversy which arises for consideration in the present batch of writ petitions is, essentially, as to whether the respondent authorities, while fixing the floor price of Raw Petroleum Coke (RPC) produced at the Guwahati Refinery, have acted in accordance with the Guidelines dated 07.05.2012, issued by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India, and the directions contained in the order dated 30.05.2019 passed by this Court.

At the outset, it may be noticed that the challenge in the present batch of writ petitions was initially directed against the e-auctions held or proposed to be held by the respondent authorities for sale of RPC. It is, however, submitted at the Bar that the auction processes in question have since been concluded. Therefore, no effective adjudication is now called for in respect of the concluded auction processes. However, the question relating to the legality of the fixation of the floor price of RPC survives for consideration, particularly in view of the consequential relief claimed by the petitioners and the specific issue raised with regard to the conformity of the said fixation with the Guidelines issued by the Government of India.

The petitioners are purchasers of RPC, which is used as a raw material in the manufacture of Calcined Petroleum Coke (CPC) and other products. Their main grievance is that the floor price fixed by the Guwahati Refinery was substantially higher than the price prevailing at other refineries and was not in conformity with the import parity price contemplated under the Guidelines dated 07.05.2012. The respondent authorities, on the other hand, have sought to justify the fixation of the floor price by contending that the same involves technical and commercial considerations and is essentially a policy decision of the Corporation, with which this Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, ought not to interfere.

It is, therefore, apposite to first examine the relevant Guidelines governing the sale/allocation of RPC. The Guidelines dated 07.05.2012 were issued by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India, to the Director (Marketing) of the concerned Oil Marketing Companies. To appreciate, it would be apposite to reproduce the said Guidelines dated 07.05.2012, which read as under:

On perusal of the aforesaid Guidelines, it is seen that the auction was prescribed as the preferred mode of sale of RPC and, significantly, it was stipulated that, “to ensure maximum revenue, the import parity price (with freight charges, quality differentials, marketing cost and margin and other necessary adjustments) should be used as the floor price in the bidding process.” The Guidelines further provide that, in order to facilitate equitable distribution and ensure preference to local industries, the auction may be restricted to units within the State. The Guidelines also contemplate that the auction process should be conducted periodically and with adequate frequency and that the quantities bid by each party should not exceed its installed/assessed capacity. Thus, the Guidelines do not merely contemplate auction as the mode of disposal of RPC, but also prescribe the broad parameters within which the auction is to be conducted, including the basis on which the floor price is to be determined.

The respondent authorities have not disputed the applicability of the aforesaid Guidelines to the sale of RPC. Indeed, the stand of the respondents is that the floor price was fixed in accordance with the Guidelines dated 07.05.2012. The question, therefore, is not whether the respondent Corporation has the power to determine the floor/reserve price of RPC. There can hardly be any dispute that, as the owner of the material and as the authority conducting the auction, the Corporation is entitled to determine an appropriate floor price, having regard to the relevant commercial and technical considerations. The question is whether such power has been exercised in accordance with the parameters prescribed by the Government of India in the aforesaid Guidelines.

The expression “import parity price” occurring in the aforesaid Guidelines also assumes significance. As explained by the Petroleum Planning and Analysis Cell (PPAC), Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India, the import parity price represents the price that an importer would pay in the event of actual import of the product at the relevant Indian port and includes, inter alia, ocean freight, insurance, duties and other applicable charges. Thus, import parity price represents the landed cost of the imported product at the relevant Indian port, taking into account the costs and charges associated with such import. In the present case, the Guidelines specifically provide that the import parity price, after taking into account freight charges, quality differentials, marketing cost and margin and other necessary adjustments, should be used as the floor price in the bidding process. Therefore, the import parity price is not merely one of the factors to be considered in fixing the floor price; rather, it forms the prescribed basis for determination of the floor price, subject to the adjustments contemplated under the Guidelines.

It is true that fixation of the price of a commodity, particularly in an auction process, may involve technical, commercial and economic considerations and ordinarily the Court would be slow to substitute its own assessment for that of the expert authority. This Court is also conscious of the settled principle that judicial review is not an appeal over a commercial or policy decision. However, the present case does not require this Court to determine what ought to be the appropriate price of RPC or to substitute its own commercial assessment for that of the respondent authorities. The limited question is whether the price fixed by the respondent authorities satisfies the very parameter which they themselves are required to follow under the applicable Guidelines.

In this regard, it may be noticed that, by order dated 28.11.2024, this Court, upon perusal of the materials placed on record, found that the import price was Rs. 19,030/- per MT and accordingly, directed the respondent authorities to place on record the details showing the manner in which the floor price at Rs. 24,150/- had been arrived at. Despite several opportunities, the requisite details were not initially placed before the Court. Ultimately, during the course of hearing, Mr. D. K. Sarmah, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent authorities, placed the relevant details before the Court in a sealed cover.

Perusal of the methodology/calculation of the RPC floor price reveals that as many as 15 components/particulars have been taken into consideration in arriving at the floor price, along with the corresponding breakup of the price per MT. This Court has carefully considered the said methodology. However, what remains material for determination is that, on the respondents' own showing, the import parity price was Rs. 19,030/- per MT, whereas the floor price fixed for RPC was Rs. 24,150/- per MT. Thus, the undeniably, the difference between the two figures is quite substantial.

As noted above, the Guidelines specifically require the import parity price, after taking into account freight charges, quality differentials, marketing cost and margin and other necessary adjustments, to be used as the floor price in the bidding process. Therefore, while the respondent authorities may take into account the permissible components and adjustments contemplated by the Guidelines, the ultimate fixation of the floor price must bear conformity with the prescribed import parity basis. The mere fact that the Corporation has taken into consideration a number of components in its internal calculation cannot, by itself, establish compliance with the Guidelines when the resultant floor price is substantially above the import parity price disclosed by the respondents themselves.

The contention of the respondents that the fixation of the floor price is a technical and commercial matter and therefore beyond the scope of judicial review, cannot be accepted in the facts of the present case. This Court is not examining the correctness of each individual commercial component independently, nor is it undertaking its own exercise of price determination. The Court is only examining whether the decision of the respondent authorities conforms to the governing Guidelines. Where the authority itself accepts that it is bound by the Guidelines and the Guidelines prescribe the import parity price as the basis for determining the floor price, a fixation which substantially departs from that basis cannot be sustained merely by describing the exercise as a technical or commercial decision.

This Court has also carefully gone through the judgments relied upon by the learned Standing Counsel, IOCL. There can be no quarrel with the proposition laid down therein that fixation of the reserve price of RPC involves technical and commercial considerations and that the Writ Court ought to be circumspect in interfering with such matters. However, the said decisions were rendered in the facts and circumstances obtaining in those cases and do not lay down that a decision of the respondent authorities, even if contrary to the governing Guidelines, is immune from judicial scrutiny. In the present case, this Court is not called upon to determine the appropriate commercial price of RPC or to substitute its own assessment for that of the respondent authorities. The issue before this Court is confined to whether the floor price fixed by the respondent authorities conforms to the Guidelines dated 07.05.2012, which admittedly govern the fixation of the floor price. The aforesaid judgments, therefore, do not advance the case of the respondents in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

This Court has also carefully perused the order dated 30.05.2019 passed by this Court in I.A. (C) No. 1813/2019 in WP(C) No. 2966/2019 and I.A. (C) No. 1815/2019 in WP(C) No. 2971/2019, whereby the respondent authorities were directed to reconsider the reserve price of RPC for the immediate e-auction so as to ensure that it was more or less at par with the other refineries of the State and that the e-auction be commenced only after fixing the reserve price accordingly. The said direction was issued in the backdrop of the grievance regarding the disparity in the prices prevailing at the different refineries.

In the present case, the floor price fixed by the Guwahati Refinery at Rs. 24,150/- per MT, when the import parity price itself was Rs. 19,030/- per MT, cannot, in the circumstances noticed above, be said to be in conformity with the requirement that the import parity price be used as the floor price in the e-auction process. The mere assertion that 15 different components were taken into consideration does not answer the fundamental question as to how the resultant figure of Rs. 24,150/- per MT satisfies the import parity requirement prescribed by the Guidelines. No satisfactory explanation has been placed before this Court to demonstrate that the substantial difference between the import parity price and the floor price was the result of the permissible adjustments contemplated under the Guidelines.

It is also not the case of the respondent authorities that the Guidelines dated 07.05.2012 ceased to govern the fixation of the floor price during the relevant period. On the contrary, their specific stand is that the floor price was fixed in accordance with the said Guidelines. Once that position is admitted, the respondent authorities were required to demonstrate that the price so fixed was arrived at on the basis prescribed therein. In the absence of such demonstration, the decision to fix the floor price substantially above the import parity price cannot be sustained.

The contention of the respondents that the petitioners had participated in the e-auction and lifted the RPC also does not, in the opinion of this Court, validate the fixation of a floor price which is otherwise found to be contrary to the applicable Guidelines. The petitioners' participation in the auction, particularly when they had already raised a specific grievance regarding the fixation of the floor price and had participated under protest, cannot operate as a waiver of their challenge to the legality of the pricing mechanism. Participation in an auction does not confer immunity upon the decision-making process from scrutiny where such process is alleged and found to be contrary to the governing Guidelines.

At the same time, this Court is not inclined to enter into the question as to what ought to have been the precise commercial price of RPC at the relevant point of time. Such an exercise would indeed require technical and commercial expertise and would fall outside the legitimate scope of judicial review. The finding of this Court is confined to the limited issue that, having regard to the applicable Guidelines and the material placed before the Court by the respondent authorities themselves, the floor price fixed at Rs. 24,150/- per MT was not in conformity with the import parity price of Rs. 19,030/- per MT prescribed as the basis under the Guidelines.

In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the respondent authorities, while fixing the floor price of RPC at Rs. 24,150/- per MT for the Guwahati Refinery, failed to adhere to the requirement contained in the Guidelines dated 07.05.2012 that the import parity price, with the permissible adjustments, be used as the floor price in the bidding process. The impugned fixation of the floor price, to the extent it resulted in a substantial deviation from the import parity price without satisfactory justification in terms of the Guidelines, cannot, therefore, be sustained.

Since the auction processes in question have already concluded, no useful purpose would be served by quashing the concluded auctions at this stage. However, the petitioners cannot be left without an effective remedy in respect of the excess amount paid by them pursuant to the impugned fixation of the floor price. The appropriate relief, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, would therefore be to direct the respondent authorities to ascertain the amount paid by the petitioners over and above the import parity price of Rs. 19,030/-per MT, in respect of the RPC purchased pursuant to the auction in question, and refund the differential amount to the concerned petitioners.

Accordingly, the respondent authorities are directed to calculate, in respect of each of the petitioners, the difference between the floor price actually charged and the import parity price of Rs. 19,030/- per MT, in respect of the quantity of RPC purchased by the petitioners pursuant to the e-auction in question and refund the differential amount to the concerned petitioner.

The aforesaid exercise shall be undertaken and completed by the respondent authorities within a period of 60 (sixty) days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and order.

The writ petitions stand disposed of in terms above. No order as to cost(s).