Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1084 (PAT)

Surendra Kumar v. State Of Bihar

2001-12-04

RAVI S.DHAVAN, SHASHANK KR.SINGH

body2001
Judgment 1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment and order of 1 October 2001 in C.W.J.C. No. 10444 of 2001 (Surendra Kumar V/s. The State of Bihar and ors.) The issues raised in the petition were that the petitioner had supplied plants at the rate of Rs. 40/- per plant and that the State respondents are obliged to deliver to him a sum of Rs. 9,08,000/- against the supply of the plants. Of the payment which was due on the sale and supply of plants, the petitioner filed the writ petition for a writ of mandamus for a direction to the State respondents (a) for the payment of price of the plants and (b) to take delivery of the remaining plants hitherto not received and/or yet to be supplied. The contention of the petitioner in the writ petition was that a contract had been awarded to him for the supply of populus plants. 2. Apparently no sooner the petitioner may have come to an arrangement to supply plants at the rate of Rs. 40/- within a matter of weeks there was a scrutiny of the arrangements between the petitioner and the office of the District Magistrate, Nawadah and the Deputy Development Commissioner, Nawadah on the assignment of this contract. Regard being had to the record as was placed in the writ petition, the learned Judge noticed the issues that a dispute existed whether the price of the plants should be Rs. 40 or Rs. 15; that a committee had been constituted for the fixation of price of the plants and that there was a doubt whether the price of each plant could be Rs. 40/-. Thus, the learned Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that if the petitioner still seeks relief for the price of the goods he would be well advised to file a suit for recovery of the price. 3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 1 October, 2001 on the writ petition and thus the present Letters Patent Appeal. 4. The Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State, also present in Court are the Commissioner, Magadh Division and the District Magistrate, Nawadah. Candidly it has been submitted by the State counsel that not much record is available for production before the Court. 4. The Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State, also present in Court are the Commissioner, Magadh Division and the District Magistrate, Nawadah. Candidly it has been submitted by the State counsel that not much record is available for production before the Court. Compared to this is the submission on the part of the petitioners counsel upon an enquiry of the Court. The Court desired to know as to where exactly is the contract which was signed between the petitioner and the District Magistrate, Nawadah. It was answered with the submission that there is no contract which was signed as the contract is being spelled from an office order of the Deputy Development Commissioner, dated 25 March, 2000 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition). After this office order was issued on the part of the petitioner there was a rush activity in supplying the plants. If indeed a contract is spelled out for supply of plants worth Rs. 9,08,000/- then it does seem rather unusual that this office order does not indicate the value of the contract. It does not indicate the quantity which was meant to be supplied and the period within which the contract is to be carried through. If this is a contract, then there must be an offer to be accepted and an adequate consideration which should pass without an issue, and the formality of the contract reduced to writing. Almost within one month of the office order by which the petitioner set about to supply the plants came an order of the District Magistrate, Nawadah that the arrangement by which the petitioner was required to supply the plants stands cancelled. This is the order of the District Magistrate, Nawadah dated 24 April, 2000 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition). 5. Clearly something was wrong between the arrangement requiring the petitioner to supply the plants and the order of the District Magistrate within one month to stop the supply. On record there is no formalised contract setting out the quantity of the goods so that the contract itself may be ascertained. The quantity is vague as being co-related to the number of Panchayats in the district. Even if the office order of 25 March, 2000 from the Deputy Development Commissioner, Nawadah is treated to be a contract, then, someone will have to work out the quantum of the goods and the price. The quantity is vague as being co-related to the number of Panchayats in the district. Even if the office order of 25 March, 2000 from the Deputy Development Commissioner, Nawadah is treated to be a contract, then, someone will have to work out the quantum of the goods and the price. 6. Again the question arises why was there a rush to make the supply. As the month of April was approaching this is the time to reap the harvest and not plant. No one stops anybody from planting trees any time; one is free to do so. But if plantation is to be carried throughout the district on such a large scale, then, any reasonable person more so State administration ought to plant during the period condusive to planting. Between the time when the petitioner received a copy of the office order dated 25 March, 2000 intimating him that he has been chosen to supply the plants and the order of 24 April, 2000 cancelling the order, a controversy was raised on the record. In between, enquiries were revealing that the price of the plants perhaps may be ranging from Rs. 12 to Rs. 24. This is a matter of record. 7. In these circumstances the Court is unable to certify that the order on the writ petition relegating the petitioner to file a suit for the recovery of the price of the plants standing at Rs. 9,08,000/- may be an incorrect order. The record is writ large with the controversy. A contract had never been formalised. Such a large contract for supply of plants throughout the district had not been made subject to a public tender. That the petitioner was chosen to make the supplies, which official had chosen the petitioner is itself a matter of enquiry. Then, there is a rush in making supplies of plants and taking an advance of Rs. 3 lacs. The writ petition filed by the petitioner in the circumstances of the record is not the remedy and rightly the leamed Judge denied the relief. The question will remain open whether the petitioner is entitled to the price of the plants which he may have supplied. 8. The Court expects that a thorough enquiry will be made in this deal as one thing is certain that this is not a manner in which State contracts are granted. The question will remain open whether the petitioner is entitled to the price of the plants which he may have supplied. 8. The Court expects that a thorough enquiry will be made in this deal as one thing is certain that this is not a manner in which State contracts are granted. The Commissioner, Magadh Division will cause an enquiry to be made and submit a report to the Chief Secretary, Bihar within one month from today. 9. The Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed.