Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

1986 DIGILAW 664 (SC)

Hari Prakash Gupta v. Bihar State Sugar Corporation LTD.

1986-12-11

M.M.DUTT, RANGANATH MISRA

body1986
(1) SPECIAL leave granted. (2) MR. Sanghi, leamed counsel forthe appellant contends that the appellantS tender had been accepted and oniy after the communication received fromthe Chief MinisterS Secretariat, the same has been ignored and a fresh arrangement with Rameshwara Jute Mills has been entered into. According to him this is contrary to law and respondent 1 which is an instrumentality ofthe State cannot be allowed to do so. Mr. Sinha, leamed counsel for respondent 1, on the other hand points out that Rameshwara Jute Mills is an indigenous concern entitled to preference inthe matter of award of such contracts as a matter of policy; that the appellantS tender had been accepted on the footing that he was an authorised supplier of a Calcutta based manufacturer but that status no more existe following termination of agency and that sugar manufacturing season has started and uniessthe packing bags are available immediately, the corporation would suffer irreparable loss. (3) HAVING heard counsel, we were satisFied that the appellant had a prima facie case but instead of creating any dead lock we suggested that the contract should be split up in the intereste of justice and the appellant should be assigned one-fourth of the contract and Rameshwara Jute Mills with which Respondent 1 has now entered into a contract may supply the remaining 3/4ths of the gunny bags. We are alive to the position that the said mill is not before us but the arrangement indicated above would be more beneficiai and commercially prudent. We direct disposai of the matter on agreement setweenthe parties on the following terms: 1. The appellant shall be awarded the contract to supply 1/4th of the requirement of the gunny bags for the current season approximately being two lakh bags. He agrees to reduce his price to Rs. 930.00 per 100 bags.the same rate is accepted by the new supplier. 2. Respondent 1S arrangement with Rameshwara Jute Mills for the supply of the remainder shall stand. 3. Respondent 1 is free to indicate a revised supply schedule withinthe scheme disclosed in the tender notice. 4. Parties stand relegated tothe position as if there is a valid contract for executing of the contract in respect of supply of gunny bags tothe extent of 1/4th of the total quantity covered by the tender. (4) THE appeal is disposed of accordingly. There is no order as to costs.