JUDGMENT R. K. PATRA, J. — This writ petition has been filed by way of Public Interest Litigation. Although the petitioner (who are two in number) have not disclosed their locus to move this Court, according to them a news item published in the Sambad on 8.11.2002 alleging commission of irregularities by the Director of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services, Orissa, Cuttack in the matter of purchase of medicines prompted them to file the present writ petition. The petitioners allege that there is truth in the news because Dr. N. N. Dhar, Joint Director-I, Directorate of Animal Husbandary and Veterinary Services, Orissa in his representation to the President of Orissa Veterinary Association has raised his voice against the manner and mode of functioning by the Director. 2. Counter affidavit has been filed by the Director of the Animal Husbandary and Veterinary Services, Orissa (Opposite party No. 3) The Commissioner-cum-Secretary to the Government in Fisheries and Animal Resources Development Department (opposite party no. 2) has also filed a separate counter affidavit. In both the counter affidavits, the allegations made in the writ petition as well as in the news item have been emphatically denied. 3. Shri Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the peti¬tioner submitted that the Director (Opp. party No. 3) has commit¬ted serious irregularities in the matter of purchase of F.M.D. vaccines and has bungled government money. Medicines were pur¬chased whimsically without assessing their requirements nor any care was taken for their preservation, as a result, the medicines lost their potency and have become useless. 4. Learned Government Advocate, on our direction, has produced the relevant records. We have perused the records as well as the pleadings of the parties. 5. From the combined reading of the counter affidavits filed on behalf of the opposite parties 2 and 3, the following facts indisputedly emerge. The Special Relief Commissioner, Orissa in his letter No. 4131 dated 28.6.2001 sanctioned fund for purchase of vaccines for animals during the year 2001-2002. Accordingly, notices were published in the Oriya daily “The Samaj” and the English daily “New Indian Express (South)” on 20.10.2001 (Annexure-B/3) invit¬ing sealed tenders for supply of medicines, etc. on payment of cost. Pursuant to the said invitations, 79 numbers of tenders were submitted which were placed before the State Level Purchase Committee under the Chairmanship of the Secretary of the Adminis¬trative Department. on payment of cost. Pursuant to the said invitations, 79 numbers of tenders were submitted which were placed before the State Level Purchase Committee under the Chairmanship of the Secretary of the Adminis¬trative Department. The said committee comprised of the represen¬tatives of P & C Department; Finance Department; Director E.P.M; Director of A.H. & V.S.Orissa (opp. party No. 3) and other offi¬cials including the Joint Director-Dr. N. N. Dhar. The Purchase Committee had several sittings i.e. on 6.6.2002, 15.2.2002, 16.2.2002, 26.2.2002, 1.3.2002, 2.3.2002 and 4.3.2002 to decide the items and rate for purchase of medicines, vaccines, chemi¬cals, etc. for the year 2001-2002. After due deliberations, the Committee approved the items and rates after shortlisting the tenders. The proceedings of the Purchase Committee are at Annex¬ure-C/3. They were duly approved by the Government in the Fisher¬ies and Animal Resources Development Department vide Government letter No. 4743 dated 8.3.2002. After receiving the aforesaid government approval, the Director (opp. party No. 3) issued purchase orders to different approved firms and suppliers at approved rates. The firms to whom orders for purchase of F.M.D. vaccines were placed viz. M/s. Indian Immunologicals Limited, Hyderabad and M/s. Narayani Enterprisers, Bhubaneswar (the sole distributor for F.M.D. vaccines manufactured by Intervet in Orissa) were the approved firms. The F.M.D. vaccines manufactured by M/s. Indian Immunologicals Ltd., Hyderabad and Intervet India Private Ltd., Pune are vaccines of proven quality which are being used by all the State Governments of the country. The vaccines were purchased from them and were supplied to different Chief District Veterinary Officers for supplying the same to Veterinary Dispensaries and Live stock Aid Centres. The Department of Animal Husbandary and Veterinary Services has been purchasing and using this F.M.D. vaccines from the said approved firms since long. From the proceedings of the Purchase Committee it would appear that Dr. N. N. Dhar had attended the meetings and put his signature. We may, at this stage, note that Sri Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioners even went to the extent of saying that the so-called signature contained in the proceedings was not of Dr.N. N. Dhar. We refused to believe the said state¬ment and hold that Dr. N. N.Dhar had attended the sittings of the Purchase Committee and was a party to the decision taken by it. We have also no hesitation to hold that the Director (opp. We refused to believe the said state¬ment and hold that Dr. N. N.Dhar had attended the sittings of the Purchase Committee and was a party to the decision taken by it. We have also no hesitation to hold that the Director (opp. party No. 3) had no individual role to play nor had any discretion in purchase of the F.M.D. vaccines, medicines, etc. All purchases were made on the recommendations of the Purchase Committee. There was clear transparency in the purchase of F.M.D. vaccines and other medicines, because they were all done by inviting public tenders. There is also no basis to allege that F.M.D. vaccines were purchased without assessing the need and vaccines would lose their efficacy. From the counter affidavits, it transpires that as per the 2001 Animal Census, the State of Orissa is having a total bovine (cattle and buffalo) population of 152 lakhs. The F.M.D. vaccines of 20 lakhs doses were only purchased keeping in view the availability of cold chain facility. The above quantum of doses purchased was sufficient to meet the requirement of the State. The F.M.D. vaccines were duly supplied to different Chief District Veterinary Officers with clear instructions to supply the same to Veterinary dispensaries and Livestock Aid Centres under their control for proper utilisation. In the meeting of the Chief District Veterinary Officers (C.D.V.Os) held on 18.4.2002, district-wise requirement was assessed and vaccines were supplied from time to time according to the need of the C.D.V.Os. who have their own refrigerators where they keep and preserve the vac¬cines. In the aforesaid meeting (copy of the proceeding is at Annexure-D/3),Dr. N. N. Dhar was also present and participated with other thirty C.D.V.Os. It is also relevant to note that to purchase 20 lakhs doses of vaccines joint suggestion was made by both the Joint Directors including Dr. N. N. Dhar as well as by the Deputy Director (Disease Control). This is evident from the office note at Annex¬ure-E/3. In the circumstances, we are inclined to hold that the F.M.D. vaccines were purchased looking to the need of the dis¬tricts and technical advice from the Joint Directors and Deputy Director (Disease Control). No other point was urged on behalf of the petitioners. 6. The allegations of non-collection of user charges, as published in the news item, has also been denied in the counter affidavits. The Director (opp. No other point was urged on behalf of the petitioners. 6. The allegations of non-collection of user charges, as published in the news item, has also been denied in the counter affidavits. The Director (opp. party No. 3) in his counter affi¬davit has asserted that the Government have approved collection of user charges @ Rs. 1/- for administration of F.M.D. vaccines per dose in Government letter No. 14950 dated 5.8.2002. This decision has been communicated to all concerned and the C.D.V.Os. The regular collection of user charges for administration of F.M.D. vaccines is being made by the C.D.V.Os. In view of what has been sated above, the allegations made in the writ petition as well as in the news item have no basis. The writ petition has thus no merit and the same is liable to be rejected. 7. Before parting with the case,we may observe that some unseen hands (though it appears to be unseen but is apparent) are behind this so-called Public Interest Litigation. It is relevant to note that in the representation made by Dr.N. N. Dhar (Annex¬ure-2) to the President, Orissa Veterinary Association, there is no whisper of any word in the matter of purchase of F.M.D. vac¬cines. The said representation contains some administrative dealings of the Director (opp.party No. 3). There may be some discontentment in the Directorate of Animal Husbandary and Veter¬inary Services, because the Director (opp. party No. 3) is an I.A.S. Officer and not an incumbent belonging to the Veterinary Services. The Secretary of the Department (Opp. Party No. 2) in his counter affidavit has referred to Rule-4 of Orissa Veterinary Service Class-I (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1995 which prescribes that an officer from I.A.S. shall hold the post of Director. Alternatively, the Additional Director of Joint Director, Level-I can be promoted to the rank of Direc¬tor. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in the appointment of opp. party No. 3 as Director. We need not delve on this matter further as it is not necessary for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition., In the result, there is no merit in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. M. PAPANNA, J. I agree. Petition dismissed.