JUDGMENT Hrishikesh Roy, J. 1. Heard Mr. C.T. Jamir, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in the three writ petitions. Also heard Mr. B.N. Sarma, learned senior counsel who represents the State respondents and it's officials. The private respondents despite service of notice have not participated in the present proceeding 2. As the issues raised in all the three writ petitions are common and the counsels are also the same, the petitions were taken up for analogous hearing and are being disposed of by this common order. 3. A tender notice dated 4.12.2006 was issued by the Director General of Police (DGP), Nagaland for supply of clothing and other equipments for the Nagaland Police personnel for the year 2007-08. The tenderers were required to provide 3 samples as per specification. Tenders were invited for supply of large number of items, but in these three cases we are concerned with only three items, namely: (1) Police Jacket (Camouflage), (2) Shoe Polish (Black) and (3) Shoe Polish (Brown). 4. On 16.2.2007 a communication was addressed to the Government by the Addl. Director General of Police (Administration) with reference to the tender notice referred to above. In the said communication it was indicated that it would be difficult to make proper comparison while accepting the items from the contractors as offers for as many as 74 items have been invited and the approved samples available in the department have became bad. Accordingly a request was made that State Level Purchase Board may be constituted for finalization and further necessary action 5. On the recommendation made, by notification dated 2.3.2007, the Government constituted a Purchase Board for finalization of procurement of clothing and equipments for which tenders were floated by the Police Head Quarter for the year 2007-08. The following officers were notified to be the members of the Purchase Board: 1. Special Secretary (Home) Chairman 2. Joint Secretary/Dy. Secretary (Finance) Member 3. Joint Secretary/Dy. Secretary (Industries) Member 4. Joint Secretary (Law) Member 5. Director General of Police or his Representative Member Secretary 6. The Purchase Board constituted by the Government met and examined the rates and samples submitted by the tenderers at the Conference Hall of the Police Headquarter. The following persons were present as members of the Purchase Board: 1. Shri K. Kire, IPS (Special Secretary (Home) Govt. of Nagaland Chairman 2. Director General of Police or his Representative Member Secretary 6. The Purchase Board constituted by the Government met and examined the rates and samples submitted by the tenderers at the Conference Hall of the Police Headquarter. The following persons were present as members of the Purchase Board: 1. Shri K. Kire, IPS (Special Secretary (Home) Govt. of Nagaland Chairman 2. Shri J. Bendangtoshi, IPS IGP (Hqrs) PHQ, Nagaland, Kohima Member, Secretary 3. Shri Ngamjok Konyak, Dy. Secretary (Law & Justice) Govt. of Nagaland Member 4. Shri Seikholun Singsit, Dy. Secretary (Finance) Govt. of Nagaland Member 5. Shri Kughato Chishi, Dy. Secretary, (Industries & Commerce), Govt. of Nagaland Member 7. The Purchase Board as has been noted in the minutes, examined the items one by one and also the samples made available by the tenderers. The copies of the terms and conditions of the tender and the specification of each item was provided by the Police Department. The samples were examined in minute in detail and after such examination, the Purchase Board made it's recommendation in respect of 71 items in favour of the selected tenderers. The names of the selectees are enclosed as Annexure-'D' in each of the three writ petition. 8. The recommendation of the Purchase Board with regard to the three items with which we are concerned with in these three writ petitions can be noted as below: 3. Police Jacket (Camouflage):- Existing Government approved rate is Rs. 810/- per jacket. The department had received 12(twelve) tenders. The rates quoted by the tenderers are as shown below: Sl. No. Name of Firms Rate Remarks Quoted 1. M/s. Chinny Magh Rs.600/- per nos 2. M/s Y. Yangpong Konyak Rs.800/- per nos. 3. M/s Savizo Chadi & Co. Rs.810/- per nos. 4. M/s Angami Trading Co. Rs.981/- per nos. 5. M/s Epidong Zeliang Rs.911/- per nos. 6. M/s Nezone Enterprises Rs.972/- per nos 7. M/s V. Tsoto & Co. Rs.871/- per nos 8. M/s Eastern Construction Rs.950/- per nos. 9. M/s. Khrietou Angami Rs.870/- per nos. 10 M/s Ponthungo Lotha Rs.876/- per nos. 11. M/s Tohokhu Sema Rs.870/- per nos. 12. M/s. P. Sobou Mere Rs.890/- per nos. Out of the 12 (twelve) tenders M/s. Chinny Magh has quoted the lowest rate but the rate is found to be unreasonable. The sample provided by the firm is also not as per specification. The 2nd lowest rate of Rs. 11. M/s Tohokhu Sema Rs.870/- per nos. 12. M/s. P. Sobou Mere Rs.890/- per nos. Out of the 12 (twelve) tenders M/s. Chinny Magh has quoted the lowest rate but the rate is found to be unreasonable. The sample provided by the firm is also not as per specification. The 2nd lowest rate of Rs. 800/- per jacket received from M/s. Y. Yangpong Konyak is found to be reasonable comparing with last year's rates. Further the sample produced by the firm is also found to be good quality and also as per specification. The Board therefore recommends that M/s. Y. Yangpong Konyak may be allotted for supply of Police Jacket (Camouflage) at the rate of Rs. 800/-. 43. Shoe Polish (Black):- Existing Government approved rate is Rs. 24.75. Altogether 17 (seventeen) tenderers were received by the department. The rates quoted by the quotations are as below: Sl. No. Name of Firms Rate Remarks Quoted 1. M/s. Ruckuo Angami Rs. 28 per tin 2. M/s Kelelhounu Angami Rs.24.50 per tin 3. M/s P. Sobou Mere Rs.31.40 per tin 4. M/s Besupra Swuro Rs.26.90 per tin 5. M/s Nagaland Footwear Rs.28/- per tin 6. M/s Bendang & Co. Rs.24.50 per tin 7. M/s V. Tsoto & Co. Rs.25.88 per tin 8. M/s Kith and Kin Enterprise Rs.23.50 per tin 9. M/s Ponthungo Lotha Rs.38/- per tin 10. M/s R.M. Ao Rs.27/- per tin 11. M/s Oriental Traders Rs.30.75 per tin 12. M/s Vimethal Rs.26/- per tin 13. M/s Khrietou Angami Rs.3.91 per tin 14. M/s Eastern Construction Rs.27.50/- per tin 15. M/s Epidong Zeliamg Rs.39/- per tin 16. M/s Savizp Chadi & Co. Rs.25/- per tin 17. M/s Metro Builders Rs.25/- per tin Out of the 17 (seventeen) tenderers the rate quoted by M/s. Kith & Kin Enterprises was below last years rate however, the sample was not as per specification hence rejected. There are two firms who had quoted the same rate that also below last years rate however, the Board has recommended for approval of the two firms i.e. M/s. Kelelhounu Angami and M/s. Bendang & Co. since the samples were found to be of superior quality and as per specification and has recommended for approval of the two firms. 1. M/s. Bendang & Co.: Rs. 24.50 each (50% of the total requirement. 2. M/s. Kelelhounu Angami: Rs. 24.50 each (50% of the total requirement. 44. since the samples were found to be of superior quality and as per specification and has recommended for approval of the two firms. 1. M/s. Bendang & Co.: Rs. 24.50 each (50% of the total requirement. 2. M/s. Kelelhounu Angami: Rs. 24.50 each (50% of the total requirement. 44. Shoe Polish (Brown) : Existing Government approved rate is Rs. 24.75. There are altogether 12 (twelve) tenderers received for supply of shoe polish (brown). The rates quoted by the quotationers are as below: Sl. No. Name of Firms Rate Quoted Remarks 1. M/s Keleihounu Angami Rs.24.50 per tin 2. M/s. P. Sobou Mere Rs.31.40 per tin 3. M/s Vimethai Rs.26/- per tin 4. M/s Kith and Kin Enterprise Rs.24/- per tin 5. M/s Oriental Traders Rs.30.75 per tin 6. M/s Nagaland Footwear Rs.28/- per tin 7. M/s Bendang & Co. Rs.24.50 per tin 8. M/s V. Tsoto & Co. Rs.25.88 per tin 9. M/s Roukuo Angami Rs.27/- per tin 10. M/s Vesupra Swuro Rs.26.90 per tin 11. M/s Savizp Chadi & Co Rs.25/- per tin 12. M/s Metro Builders Rs.25/- per tin Out of the 12 (twelve) tenderers the rate quoted by M/s. Kith & Kin Enterprises was lower than the last years rate however, the sample is of good quality and is also as per specification. The Board has therefore recommended M/s. Kith & Kin Enterprise for approval. 1. M/s. Kith & Kin Enterprise : Rs. 24/- per Nos. 9. From the recommendation of the Purchase Board noted above, it is apparent that the writ petitioner M/s. Y. Yeangpang Konyak in W.P.(C) No. 89 (K)/07 was recommended for supply of police jacket (Camouflage) at the rate of Rs. 800/- per piece. Similarly the two writ petitioners, namely, M/s. Bendang & Co. and M/s. Keleihounu Angami of W.P.(C) No. 92(K)/07 were recommended by the Purchase Board for supply of shoe polish (Black), in the proportion of 50% each, of the total requirement at the rate of Rs. 24.50 paise for each unit. As regards the item shoe police (brown) the writ petitioner M/s. Kith & Kin Enterprise of W.P.(C) No. 90(K)/07 was recommended by the Purchase Board at the rate of Rs. 24/- per unit. 10. 24.50 paise for each unit. As regards the item shoe police (brown) the writ petitioner M/s. Kith & Kin Enterprise of W.P.(C) No. 90(K)/07 was recommended by the Purchase Board at the rate of Rs. 24/- per unit. 10. After the recommendation of the Purchase Board, the Government took the decision to divide the supply orders amongst different suppliers mentioned in the list appended as Annexure-'A' in the communication dated 31.5.2007 (Annexure 'F'), which is the decision impugned in these three writ petitions. By the said communication dated 31.5.2007 the Director General of Police, Nagaland was directed to place supply orders with the Firms notified in the said impugned notification. 11. It appears that the Government by the impugned Annexure-F communication had directed procurement of supply with regard to the three items in question in the following manner: Name of Items Approved Firm Approved Rate Quantity allotted 1. Police Jacket (1) M/s. Angami Trading Co. Rs.800/- 20% of total requirement. (2) M/s P. Sobu Mere 30% of total requirement (3) M/s V. Tsoto & Co. 40% of total requirement (4) M/s Y. Yeangpong Konyak 10% of total requirement 43. Shoe Polish (Black) (1) M/s P. Sobu Mere Rs.24.50 15% of total requirement (2) M/s R. M. Ao. 25% of total requirement (3) M/s V. Tsoto & Co. 25% of total requirement (4) M/s Kelelhounei Angami 10% of total requirement (5) M/s Bendang & Co. 25% of total requirement 44. Shoe Polish (Brown) (1) M/s V. Tsoto & Co. Rs.24/- 50% of total requirement (2) M/s Kith & Kin Enterprise 50% of 12. From the aforesaid communication of the Government it appears that in stead of acting on the recommendation of the Purchase Board, the Government decided to segregate the supply order and recommended additional suppliers with regard to police jacket. The petitioner M/s. Y. Yeangpong Konyak has been ordered to supply only 10% of the total requirement and three other suppliers, arrayed as private respondents in W.P.(C) No. 89 (K)/07 have been recommended to supply the balance 90% of the total requirement of jackets of the Police Department. 13. The petitioner M/s. Y. Yeangpong Konyak has been ordered to supply only 10% of the total requirement and three other suppliers, arrayed as private respondents in W.P.(C) No. 89 (K)/07 have been recommended to supply the balance 90% of the total requirement of jackets of the Police Department. 13. Similarly for supply of shoe polish(black), although the Purchase Board had recommended two writ petitioners for supply of 50% each of the total requirement, the two writ petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 92(K)/07 have been ordered to supply only 25% of the total requirement and the balance 75% of the requirement of shoe polish (black) have been ordered to be procured from the three private respondents in W.P.(C) No. 92(K)/07. 14. As regards the item shoe polish (brown), although the Purchase Board had recommended M/s. Kith & Kin Enterprise, the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 90(K)/07, by the impugned notification dated 31.5.2007, the Government has directed procurement of only 50% of the total requirement from the supplier recommended by the Purchase Board and directed procurement of the balance 50% from the private respondent V. Tsoto & Co., which is arrayed as the private respondent in W.P.(C) No. 90(K)/07. 15. Assailing the Government decision, Mr. C.T. Jamir, learned Counsel contends that since the Purchase Board was constituted to make recommendation for selection of the suppliers and since the Purchase Board had made recommendation in favour of the writ petitioners, a legitimate right has accrued to them and the petitioners' would have legitimate expectation that they would be permitted to make the supply on the basis of the recommendation of the Purchase Board. It is submitted that since the said legitimate expectation of the writ petitioners have been belied, the impugned Annexure F decision as regards the three items are required to be interfered with by this Court and the writ petitioners be permitted to make the entire supply. 16. The learned Counsel further submits that the recommendation of the Purchase Board in favour of the writ petitioners could not have been diluted by permitting the writ petitioners to make only a fraction of the supply and permitting the non-recommended private respondents to make the balance supply. 16. The learned Counsel further submits that the recommendation of the Purchase Board in favour of the writ petitioners could not have been diluted by permitting the writ petitioners to make only a fraction of the supply and permitting the non-recommended private respondents to make the balance supply. Since the private respondents have not been recommended by the Purchase Board on objective consideration of their offers, it is submitted that if the Government is permitted to interfere with the tender process in such manner, the sanctity of the tender process would be violated and the petitioners would be subjected to discriminatory treatment. 17. The learned Counsel further contends that the decision making process of the respondent authorities have been vitiated in law in as much as the recommendation of the Purchase Board have been disregarded because of extraneous consideration and pressure and if such interference is permitted, it would violate the right of the petitioners to a fair consideration in the hands of the respondent authorities. 18. Defending the Government action, Mr. B.N. Sarma, learned senior counsel submits that although the Purchase Board was constituted by the Government on the recommendation of the DGP, Nagaland, the Government is not bound to act on the recommendation of the Purchase Board as the Government is not expected to act as a mere rubber stamp and for appropriate reason, the Government can defer from the recommendation made by the Purchase Board. Mr. Sarma also submits that although the DGP was recommended to be the Member Secretary of the Purchase Board by the Government in the notification dated 2.3.2007, the DGP did not act as the Member Secretary of the Purchase Board and in stead the IGP, Head Quarter had acted as the Member Secretary and accordingly, the constitution of the Purchase Board itself was not as per the Government notification dated 2.3.2007 and as such the Government had the option to disregard the recommendation of the Purchase Board. 19. The next submission made on behalf of the respondent is that the Government ought to be permitted to divide the supply order amongst different suppliers to avoid monopoly and since the rate recommended by the Purchase Board had been left intact, the staggering of the supply order should not be interfered with by the Writ Court. The final submission of Mr. The final submission of Mr. Sarma is that the present writ petitions are pre-mature, as supply orders are yet to be placed and on this ground alone, these writ petitions should be dismissed. 20. It appears that interim orders have been passed in these three writ petitions directing stay of the impugned Annexure-F communication dated 31.5.2007 of the Government. Accordingly, no further action has been taken with regard to securing of supply, either on the basis of the recommendation of the Purchase Board or on the basis of the impugned notification dated 31.5.2007.; 21. A tender process for securing supply "of Government requirement is envisaged in order to ensure transparency and fairness and also to secure the best price and materials which would serve the cause of public interest. In the instant case offers were made by the different suppliers in response to the NIT dated 4.12.2006, issued by the DGP. On the request of the Police Department the Government constituted a Purchase Board by notification dated 2.3.2007 and the said Purchase Board was constituted for finalization on procurement of clothing and other equipments, for which tenders were floated by the Police Head Quarter for the year 2007-08 as can be seen from the notification dated 2.3.2007 issued by the Government. The writ petitioners claim a legal right and a legitimate expectation on the basis of the recommendation made by the said Purchase Board. 22. In my considered view such right would definitely accrue in favour of the writ petitioners as the Purchase Board was constituted with the specific intent to finalize the procurement of clothing and other equipments and the recommendation of the Purchase Board is to be given its due worth. 23. As regards the objection raised by the learned senior counsel representing the State respondent that it was not the DGP, who acted as Member Secretary of the Purchase Board and accordingly the recommendation of the Purchase Board can be disregarded, it is seen from the notification dated 2.3.2007 that DGP or his representative was notified to be the Member Secretary of the Purchase Board. Therefore, there could not be any hard and fast rule that the DGP had to function as the Member Secretary of the Purchase Board and in his absence, presence of the IGP(HQ) as his nominee would not in my view vitiate the recommendation of the Purchase Board. 24. Therefore, there could not be any hard and fast rule that the DGP had to function as the Member Secretary of the Purchase Board and in his absence, presence of the IGP(HQ) as his nominee would not in my view vitiate the recommendation of the Purchase Board. 24. With regard to the issue raised that me Government cannot be a rubber stamp to approve the recommendation of the Purchase Board and can take its own independent decision in the matter, I am of the view that for bonafide and legitimate reasons the Government may perhaps disregard the recommendation of the Purchase Board. But in the instant case the Government does not appear to have disregarded the recommendation of the Purchase Board for any acceptable bonafide reason. What the Government did by the impugned Annexure F communication is to restrict the quantity of the supplies to be made by the recommended supplier to a certain percentage of the total supply and permitted supplies to be made by other suppliers (arrayed as private respondents) which were not recommended by the Purchase Board. Nothing was indicated in the tender notice that the supply order would be divided amongst different suppliers or that a selected supplier would not be permitted to make the supply of entire requirement. Therefore the decision of the Government to permit supplies to be made by the non-recommended suppliers, in my view was impermissible as per the terms and conditions, which govern the present tender process. In any event such intervention if allowed would make the entire tender process redundant as the tenderers must have made their offers keeping in mind the actual quantity of the items to be supplied as was indicated in the NIT. 25. On the challenge being made as to the maintainability of the writ petitions on the ground that these are pre-mature, I am of the view that by the impugned communication dated 31.5.2007, the Government had clearly directed the DGP for issuing supply orders with the Firms mentioned in the impugned communication and as such it cannot be considered that the writ petitioners had approached this Court at a pre-mature stage. By the impugned direction dated 31.5.2007, the Government has interfered with the recommendation made by the Purchase Board which had led to accrual of certain legal rights in favour of the recommended suppliers, who would naturally have the legitimate expectation to be favoured with the supply order on the basis of the Purchase Board recommendation. As such, the objection that the writ petitions are pre-mature is not accepted and the said objection is rejected. 26. The writ petitioners in the present cases had made their competitive offer in response to the tender notice dated 4.12.2006 for supply of police department requirement and they have been recommended for making the said supply by the Purchase Board, constituted for making the evaluation. The Purchase Board examined the terms and conditions of the tender and the samples and the offer given by the different tenderers along with the requirements of the Department and after and objective evaluation, made the recommendation in favour of the writ petitioners. Such recommendations have been interfered with by the Government by restricting the quantum of supply to be made by the recommended tenderers and permitting supplies to be made by contractors who were not recommended by the Purchase Board. No legally acceptable basis could be shown for the impugned Government decision and the only explanation offered by the Government is that they are not bound to accept the recommendations of the Purchase Board and that the supply orders have been ordered to be placed with various suppliers to avoid the monopoly of a single supplier. Nothing in the tender conditions permit the Government to secure supply from more than one supplier. The Government is not forthcoming with any acceptable reason for disregarding the recommendations of the Purchase Board, which lends credence to the petitioners submission that the Government had acted for non-bonafide and extraneous considerations. 27. In view of the above discussion, the impugned communication of the Government dated 31.5.2007 (Annexure-F) with regard to (1) Police Jacket (Camouflage), (2) Shoe Polish (Black) and (3) Shoe Polish (Brown) are held to be legally unsustainable and the same are accordingly quashed. 28. In view of the quashing of the said decision, the Government is permitted to secure the supply on the basis of the recommendations made by the Purchase Board in favour of the Writ Petitioners. 29. These writ petitions stand allowed accordingly. No costs. Petition allowed