Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 823 (RAJ)

Anand Medical Store v. State of Rajasthan

2005-03-16

PRAKASH TATIA

body2005
Judgment Prakash Tatia, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved against the refusal of the respondents from reimbursing the bills of medicines which were given by the petitioner in pursuance of the order dated 21.07.1997. According to the petitioner, he supplied the medicines to the pensioners free of cost as he was authorised for that purpose vide sanction letter dated 29.07.1997. 3. The facts in brief are that the plaintiff was authorised to provide the medicines to the pensioners vide order dated 29.07.1997. On 22.05.2004, the tenders were invited for appointing new medical stores for providing medicines to the civil pensioners. The petitioner challenged the action of the respondents by filing civil suit in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Sriganganagar, which appears to have been filed on 11.06.2004. In the suit plaintiff prayed that the respondents may be restrained from opening tender in pursuance of the notice inviting tender dated 20.05.2004. The foundation of the claim to the petitioner as is apparent form the prayer in the suit is that his authorisation as given by the order dated 29.07.1997 was in force and, therefore, the respondents had no right to invite the tenders and given the contract to any other person. No stay order was granted by the trial Court to the petitioner and, therefore, on 16.06.2004, the order was passed granting authorisatoin to give medicine to the pensioners to M/s Gautam Medical Store. According to the petitioner despite giving this permission to M/s Gautam Medical Store the petitioner continued to supply the medicines to the civil pensioners and submitted bills for reimburse to the respondents but the respondents denied to reimburse the bills on the ground that contract has already been given to M/s Gautam Medical Store and the plaintiff should not have supplied the medicines to the civil pensioners on the strength of his order dated 29.07.1997. However, it will be worthwhile to mention here that the petitioner submitted an application before the trial Court and withdrew his suit unconditionally which is apparent from the order-sheet dated 210.2004. 4. However, it will be worthwhile to mention here that the petitioner submitted an application before the trial Court and withdrew his suit unconditionally which is apparent from the order-sheet dated 210.2004. 4. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the petitioners authorisation was never cancelled by the respondents and despite giving the authorisation to M/s Gautam Medical Store the petitioner was entitled to provide the medicines to the pensioners and, therefore, the petitioner rightly supplied the medicines to the pensioners and is entitled to get reimbursement from the respondents. 5. It is clear from the facts mentioned above, in view of the prayer made by the petitioner in his suit that the petitioner has claimed that his authorisation in pursuance to the authorisation letter dated 29.07.1997 is continuing but that has been abandoned by the petitioner himself by withdrawing the suit. In view of the above when the petitioner has withdrawn his suit having foundation of allegation of continuation of the authorisation on 29.07.1997 even after inviting offer for supply of medicine then certainly he was not entitle for reimbursement of any amount from the respondents. 6. I do not find any merit in this writ petition, therefore, the writ petition is dismissed.