Order S. J. Mukhopadhaya, J.-Petitioner Atma Ram Agencies Ltd. of W. P. (C) No. 4310 of 2002 (1st writ petition for short) assailed the decision of the Respondents State authorities to accept the price quotation for supply of units of Tractor with trailer of 4th Respondent-Chhotanagpur Agro Agencies, Ranchi-petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 5981 of 2002 (2nd Writ petition for short). The order for supply of units of Tractor with Trailer given in favour of the said 4th Respondent was alleged to be illegal, arbitrary, unfair, mala fide, discriminatory and suffers from lack of transparency, fairness, openness etc. 2. During the pendency of the first writ petition, the respondents published a notice on 14th August, 2002 in newspaper "Prabhat Khabar", whereby it cancelled the earlier tender notice published in the newspaper dated 12th May, 2002 and the corrigendum published on 19th May, 2002 in respect of tender inviting supply of Tractors with trailers. It having affected, the 4th Respondent-Chhotanagpur Agro Agencies, preferred the 2nd writ petition and challenged the notice dated 14th August, 2002. In the aforesaid background, both the writ petitions were heard together for their disposal by common order/judgment. 3. The fact as admitted in both the cases is that the Respondents Jharkhand State Scheduled Tribes Cooperative Development Corporation Ltd., Ranchi (Corporation for short) issued a tender notice in newspaper on 5th April, 2002 asking sealed quotation from manufacturers/authorized dealer of Tractors to give their lowest rate for purchase of 68 units at Tractors as per Specification 40/45 H.P. It followed by another notice published in newspaper on 12th May, 2002 for submission of sealed quotation from manufacturers/authorized dealers of Tractors giving their lowest rate for purchase of Tractors with Trailers. The specification of engine was shown as 40 H. P. (2700 C.C.) A corrigendum was published on 19th May, 2002, modifying the notice published on 12th May, 2002 and in place of engine specification of 40 H. P. (2700 C. C.), it was ordered to read as 40 H. P. (2500 C. C. and above). The petitioner Atma Ram Agencies Ltd. (of 1st writ petition); petitioner Chhotanagpur Agro Agencies (4th Respondent in the first writ petition and petitioner in the 2nd writ petition) and others submitted tenders with their quotation for supply of Tractors with Trailers. Atma Ram Agencies Ltd., the petitioner of 1st writ petition quoted Rs. The petitioner Atma Ram Agencies Ltd. (of 1st writ petition); petitioner Chhotanagpur Agro Agencies (4th Respondent in the first writ petition and petitioner in the 2nd writ petition) and others submitted tenders with their quotation for supply of Tractors with Trailers. Atma Ram Agencies Ltd., the petitioner of 1st writ petition quoted Rs. 2,87,733/- for supply of one unit of Tractor with tripping Trailer and Rs. 2, 78, 408 per unit of Tractor with non trapping Trailer (Hindustan MG. 405 Model). The Chhotanagpur Agro Agencies, 4th Respondent - petitioner of 2nd writ petition quoted Rs. 3,10,449/- per unit of Tractor and Trailor (Escorts 440 Pt. Model). Subsequently, the Respondents Corporation having selected the Chhotanagpur Agro Agencies, 4th Respondent-petitioner of 2nd writ petition and having ordered to supply Tractors with Trailers (Escorts 440 pt. Model), the 1st writ petition was preferred. The Corporation vide letter No. 380 dated 30th May, 2002 issued supply order to Chhotanagpur Agro Agencies, 4th Respondent-petitioner of 2nd writ petition for supply of 68 nos. of Tractors for a sum of Rs. 2,14,05,720/-. The amount was also paid to the said Agency, vide D.D.No. 93398 dated 30th May, 2002. . The very next date, the Respondents Corporation issued another order on 31st May, 2002 in favour of Chhotanagpur Agro Agencies, 4th Respondent-petitioner of 2nd writ petition for supply of another 65 nos. of Tractors and Trailers (Escorts 440 Pt. Model) for a sum of Rs. 2,04,61,350/- and paid the amount vide two cheques. Immediately thereafter as the dispute raised and writ petitions were preferred, in spite of request made by the 4th Respondent, Chhotanagpur Agro Agencies-petitioner of 2nd writ petition, delivery of Tractors and Trailers were not taken by the Corporation. 4. Another writ petition namely, W.P. (C) No. 3408 of 2002 was preferred by one International Tractors Ltd. Against the decision to award supply order in favour of Chhotanagpur Agro Agencies, petitioner of 2nd writ petition. It having dismissed, the International Tractors Ltd. preferred L.P.A. No. 368 of 2002. Before the appellate court, the argument as advanced and noticed by the Court, as quoted hereunder: "During the course of marathon hearing, several issues forming the subject matter of this appeal were canvassed and argued before us by the learned counsel for the parties. It having dismissed, the International Tractors Ltd. preferred L.P.A. No. 368 of 2002. Before the appellate court, the argument as advanced and noticed by the Court, as quoted hereunder: "During the course of marathon hearing, several issues forming the subject matter of this appeal were canvassed and argued before us by the learned counsel for the parties. One such issue raised to the prescription of specification for the purchase of the tractors; the other about the competence of an individual junior ranking officer in Birsa Agricultural University on whose recommendations the specifications were fixed. The third issue was as to whether it could not have been desirable if a multi member committee would have been entrusted the task of selection of the tractors, on the basis of the best available options and the lowest price. 2. During the course of arguments it came out that initially the Respondents had invited quotations for purchase of tractors of 40/45 H.P., this was later on cancelled. Subsequently, another NIT was issued inviting quotations for purchase of tractors having engine of 40 H. P. (2700 C.C.) and this was subsequently modified in the sense that the cubic capacity was changed from 2700 C.C. to 2500 C.C. and above. This modification and change in the specification gave rise to the controversy forming the subject matter of the present appeal. It was argued during the course of hearing that either the Respondents should have specified the H.P. only on the cubic capacity of the engine only because specifying the H.P. and the Cubic Capacity simultaneously, perhaps, was not required. 3. It was also argued that merely on the basis of an advise rendered by a Junior Ranking Farm Superintendent in the Agricultural University, the Respondents should not have taken this vital decision and they should have involved technical experts preferably Automobile Engineers who knew about the tractors and the playing of the tractors in the field. It was also argued that actually a multi member committee should have collectively taken a decision in the matter." In the meantime, the tender notice having cancelled by the Corporation, the appeal rendered in fructuous vide order dated 28th August, 2002. 5. It would be evident that the notice calling tender initially issued on 5th April, 2002 for purchase of 68 units of Tractors and Trailers. 5. It would be evident that the notice calling tender initially issued on 5th April, 2002 for purchase of 68 units of Tractors and Trailers. In the notice calling tender initially issued on 5th April, 2002 for purchase of 68 units of Tractors and Trailers. In the subsequent notice dated 12th May, 2002, details of total number of supply of Tractors were not mentioned. For the best reason known to the Respondent Corporation, the first supply order was issued on 30th May, 2002 for 68 Tractors along with payment of Rs. 2, 14,05, 720/- and on the next date i.e. on 31st May, 2002, supply order for another 65 nos. of Tractors with Trailers were issued by the Corporation in favour of the Chhotanagpur Agro Agencies, petitioner of 2nd writ petition, with further payment of Rs. 2,04,61,350/- along with the order. That means, the order of supply was given for 133 Tractors, though the initial notice was for supply of 68 Tractors with Trailers. 6. Keeping all such things in mind, the Court directed the Corporation to produce the original file relating to supply. It appears that on receipt of tender quotations on 23rd May, 2002, some note was given by one or other employee/officer on 28th May, 2002. The Secretary cleared three quotations, vide his note dated 27th May, 2002, namely, (1) TAFEMF 241 Model; (2) Hindustan-MG 405 Model; and (3) Escorts-440 Pt Model., which fulfilled the specifications. Comparison chart was also enclosed with the note. The Managing Director of the Corporation, vide his note dated 29th May, 2002, rejected the 'T AFE-MF 241 Model Tractors' on the ground of higher price. and also rejected the 'Hindustan-MG 405 Model Tractors' on the ground that it has one price of Rs. 2,68,502 and the other Rs. 2,29,807/-, which is inexplicable and on the ground of no infrastructural facilities and recommended to purchase 'Escorts-440 Pt. Model Tractors' on the ground that it was a best suited both in terms of specifications, price and other conditions and in the interest of the beneficiaries. 7. From the records, it would be evident that the technical aspects of one or other Tractor, other aspects like availability of spare parts of such Tractors in the State, number of Service Stations, the facilities the tenderer will offer such as, Engine, training facilities etc. were not discussed. 7. From the records, it would be evident that the technical aspects of one or other Tractor, other aspects like availability of spare parts of such Tractors in the State, number of Service Stations, the facilities the tenderer will offer such as, Engine, training facilities etc. were not discussed. The matter was not even placed before any Technical Committee having knowledge of motor vehicles. It is not clear from the original records as to why supply orders were issued simultaneously on two days i.e. 30th May, 2002 and 31st May, 2002 for supply of about more than twice the number of Tractors than the number of Tractors initially required and shown in the first tender notice. It is also not clear from the original records why the total payments i.e. about Rupees five crores were released in favour of Chhotanagpur Agro Agencies, petitioner of 2nd writ petition, when the work orders were issued, without verification of any Tractor and without receipt of supply. It appears that a sum of Rs. 5,53,23,020/- has been given to the . Chhotanagpur Agro Agencies, petitioner of 2nd writ petition, in the manner as discussed above. 8. In the aforesaid background, there being various infirmities in dealing with the matter in issuance of the supply order etc. and if the Respondents Corporation ultimately decided to cancel the total steps taken in pursuance of the tender notice and issued notice dated 14th August, 2002 cancelling the earlier tender notice, I do not find myself to interfere with the notice issued by the Respondents Corporation. 9. The first writ petition i.e. W.P. (C) No. 4310 of 2002 having become infructuous on issuance of cancellation notice dated 14th August, 2002, it is dismissed, as infructuous. 10. The 2nd writ petition i.e. W.P. (C) No. 5981 of 2002 is also dismissed having no merit. 11. It will be open to the Respondents Corporation to publish fresh tender notice inviting notice. It will also be open to them to recover the money already paid to the Chhotanagpur Agro Agencies, petitioner of 2nd writ petition, in accordance with law. In fact, it is desirable if the Chhotanagpur Agro Agencies, petitioner of 2nd writ petition refund the money immediately. If it is refunded within a month, the Respondents Corporation should not charge any interest. In fact, it is desirable if the Chhotanagpur Agro Agencies, petitioner of 2nd writ petition refund the money immediately. If it is refunded within a month, the Respondents Corporation should not charge any interest. On failure, the Respondents Corporation may proceed to recover the principal amount and interest, if payable, as per law.