JUDGEMENT 1. How official authority is flagrantly abused in matters of selection for issuing purchase orders is amply illustrated by this case. 2. The two writ petitioners are manufacturers and suppliers of various goods and have challenged the decision of the Central Purchase Committee headed by the Director, Purchase, Store and Material Management, Water Resources Department, Patna by which they have selected private respondents No. 7 and 8, namely, M/s Sale Point of Patna and M/s J.R. Enterprises of Sitamarhi for supply of nyion crates for anti-flood erosion work. Private respondents No. 7 and 8 have appeared filed their counter affidavits. State, in the Department of Water Resources, have filed their counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit. Rejoinder to all have also been filed by the petitioners and as such, with consent of parties, the writ petition is being disposed of at this stage itself. 3. On 29.12.2008, a decision was taken to issue emergent Tender No. 2 of the year, 2008-2009 for purchase of various articles in various groups by the Water Resources Department, Bihar, Patna. Group 2 of the said emergent tender related to supply of nylon crates with which we are concerned. The said tender was published in the newspapers in the 1st week of January, 2009. It clearly provided that the tender papers would be sold between 5th and 14th January, 2009 and the last date for receipt of tender was fixed as 15th January, 2009. The tenders were to be filed in two separate sealed envelopes. First being the technical bid and the second being the financial bid. 16.1.2009 was fixed as the date when technical bids would be opened and so far as financial bids are concerned, the date was to be informed later opening the technicals bids. The tenderers were, as per the notice inviting tender, required to give their capacity of production and storage space available with them. In the NIT, no period was indicated for completing supplies, if selected. It appears on 15.1.2009 in respect of nylon crates, 7 tenders were filed. On 16.1.2009, technical bids were opened. It appears that after opening the technical bid, on 16.1.2009, "some decision was taken"in the Water Resources Department to verify the status of the industries of the 7 tenderers and the available storage space with them. It appears on 15.1.2009 in respect of nylon crates, 7 tenders were filed. On 16.1.2009, technical bids were opened. It appears that after opening the technical bid, on 16.1.2009, "some decision was taken"in the Water Resources Department to verify the status of the industries of the 7 tenderers and the available storage space with them. Why this Court has used the expression that "some decision was taken" because the State has not brought on record any such decision in spite of orders of this Court yet it has brought on record and admitted that the respondent-Director, Purchase, Store and Material Management, Water Resources Department, Patna wrote to various authorities making specific enquiries about individual tenderer at different times, details of which will be discussed later as they are material and important. At this juncture, I may also like to point out that even though some decision was taken and enquiries weru made in regard to the credentials of the tenderers, such enquiries were selectively made not at one time but by individual letters on different dates. The purpose and the intention behind it remain undisclosed. What is more curious is as would be seen from the fact to be discussed later on. What was their purpose is also not disclosed because adverse reports even did not deter the Central Purchase Committee in awarding tenders to private respondents. 4. In this connection, I may point out that on 23.1.2009, vide letter No. 48, the respondent-Director wrote to the General Manager, Industries Department, Sitamarhi enquiring about the present status production capacity and storage capacity of M/s J.R. Enterprises, Sitamarhi (respondent No. 8). In that communication, which is part of Annexure-2 series to the writ application and not in dispute, it was clearly stated that though the unit has registration of small scale industry of the year 2002 but has not made any supplies to the Department for past several years. With regard to respondent No. 7, a similar letter was written by the respondent-Director on 3.2.2009. Be it noted that in recent past, respondent No. 7 had made supplies to the Department. On 3.2.2009, enquiries were also made about petitioner No. 1 by the said Director. Enquiries with regard to petitioner No. 2 were made by the Director by his letter dated 4.2.2009. Be it noted that in recent past, respondent No. 7 had made supplies to the Department. On 3.2.2009, enquiries were also made about petitioner No. 1 by the said Director. Enquiries with regard to petitioner No. 2 were made by the Director by his letter dated 4.2.2009. There is no explanation from the Department much less the Director who has himself first sworn the counter affidavit as to why the same query in respect of different persons were being made on different dates. Even in case of petitioner No. 1, less than a month back, he had completed substantial supplies of the same materia!, yet queries were made. 5. Now coming to the responses. In respect of respondent No. 8, M/s J.R. Enterprises who had not made any supply to the Department for past several years, the response was received from the General Manager, District Industry Centre, Sitamarhi vide his letter dated 4.2.2009. This letter which is part of Annexure-4 series to the writ application clearly states that on inspection the unit was found closed and as the unit was found closed, there was no question of reporting about its manufacturing capacity or its storage capacity. When was this letter received in the Department is not disclosed. The reports with regard to respondent No. 7 and petitioner No. 1 was received from the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Patna vide his letter dated 9th February, 2009. It clearly reported, so far as petitioner No. 1 is concerned, it was functional but so far as respondent No. 7 is concerned, it reported that the unit was closed and, as such, no report about its capacity could be given. Again, on what date the said report was received is not disclosed. 6. It would be seen from the above facts that queries were made on different dates and responses received on different dates. Respondents in relation to respondents No. 7 and 8, who have ultimately been granted the contract, were adverse specifically mentioning that the units were closed. At Bar, on behalf of the State, it was urged that these reports were sought for to verify the capacity of tenderers to honour their commitments and genuineness of their establishment. Court, even if it accepts the bona fides in this regard of the respondent- Director, there is much more than what meets the eyes. At Bar, on behalf of the State, it was urged that these reports were sought for to verify the capacity of tenderers to honour their commitments and genuineness of their establishment. Court, even if it accepts the bona fides in this regard of the respondent- Director, there is much more than what meets the eyes. Learned counsel for the State was at a loss as to why individual letters were written on different dates nor could he produce any decision of any authority to make such queries yet queries on different dates were made in respect of different parties. Court feels that if there was any bona fide in the queries being made then in respect of all tenderers, queries ought to have been made simultaneously and then decisions taken on receipt of response but apparently there was something sinister in the whole affair as would be now which remains unexplained as would be apparent from the facts which would be unfolded now. 7. As noted earlier, technical bids had already been opened on 16.1.2009. On 29.1.2009, without waiting for any response to the queries which were being sent out, the respondent-Director prepared a comparative chart of all the 7 tenderers in this group in respect of nylon crates. He noted that so far as petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 7 are concerned, they had been given supply orders in recent past. Respondent No. 7 M/s Sale Point, Patna had not yet submitted compliance in respect of supplies to certain regions. A meeting of the Central Purchase Committee was called on the same very day. These proceedings are Annexure-E series to the second supplementary counter affidavit of the State. On 29.1.2009 itself again, without reference to any queries being sought to be made, it was decided by the Central Purchase Committee headed by the said Director to open the financial bids of the 7 tenderers in this group. On 4.2.2009, the Director again prepared an agenda for the Central Purchase Committee after opening the 7 financial bids of the tenderer and draws a comparative statement. He points out that respondents No. 7 and 8 are lowest tenderers. He notes that as the order is a substantial order and has to be supplied with a fixed period, it is better if more than one supplier amongst the lowest tenderers is selected. He points out that respondents No. 7 and 8 are lowest tenderers. He notes that as the order is a substantial order and has to be supplied with a fixed period, it is better if more than one supplier amongst the lowest tenderers is selected. He makes no mention about queries being made but notes a doubt about capacity of the units to supply the materials especially in reference to some who have not made supplies in the near past. This note is also part of Annexure-E Series and is dated 4.2.2009. On the same day, the Central Purchase Committee meets and decides to allot the tender for purchase of nylon crates from respondents No. 7 and 8 at the rate quoted by them but what is most surprising to the Court is that in the same decision, it is noted that before issuing work order, the present status of the units, their production capacity should be enquired into by the Director. This clearly establishes mala fide on part not only of the Director but the Committee. I hold so because how can a decision to place orders of purchase be taken from units without even verifying their credentials. Queries had already been sent and responses awaited. Without receipt of responses, a decision to select was already taken effectively eliminating all others. Further, as noted above, it would be seen that both in respect of respondents No. 7 and 8, adverse reports were received but that was not at all considered while selecting them. Now we come to the recommendation of the Director dated 6.2.2009 to Central Purchase Committee which is also part of the supplementary counter affidavit of the State. Here, he notes that on 4.2.2009, decision to select respondents no. 7 and 8 was taken. He notes that letter dated 4.2.2009 had been received from the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Sitamarhi clearly stating that respondent No. 8 was closed and no response in respect of respondent No. 7 was received. He recommends decision to be taken in this regard. The decision is then taken by the Committee on the query day that is 6.2.2009 itself, which is all the more surprising, states that on 4.2.2009, respondents No. 7 and 8 were selected because their rates being the lowest. He recommends decision to be taken in this regard. The decision is then taken by the Committee on the query day that is 6.2.2009 itself, which is all the more surprising, states that on 4.2.2009, respondents No. 7 and 8 were selected because their rates being the lowest. Inspite of reports that the units were closed, it was decided that they could be issued work order as though the units were closed, on orders being placed, the units would start. Who gave this information or what was the source of this information to the Committee is not known. Though this meeting took place on 6.2.2009, the proceedings are signed on 9.2.2009 by all the members. On 10.2.2009, Purchase Order No. 8 dated 10.2.2009 is issued by the respondent- Director in favour of respondent No. 8 and on 11.2.2009, Purchase Order No. 9 dated 11.2.2009 is issued by the respondent- Director in favour of respondent No. 7. In the purchase order, now for the first time, it is disclosed that 50% of the supplies have to be completed by 15th of March, 2009 and the rest by 7.4.2009. 8. The writ application is then filed on 24.2.2009 and on 26.2.2009, this Court passes an order making the work order subject to the result of the case while issuing notice to respondents No. 7 and 8. Matter is then taken up on different dates by this Court. 9. The private respondents, in their virtually identical counter affidavits, have stated that they had virtually completed the supplies and received payments by the time they received information about pendency of this case. On behalf of petitioners, it was suggested that the entire urgency was that because the respondent- Director was to superannuate on the 31st of March, 2009 and it is because of this that he, alongwith other members of the Purchase Committee, manoeuvred the whole affair. 10. In my view, having considered the entire material, the entire process lacks bona fide. Why queries were made on different dates in respect of different tenderers is not explained. Why, without waiting for response, was the decision taken to open the financial bids is not explained. Why and under what circumstances, in spite of adverse report, decision was taken to select respondents No. 7 and 8 and then give them work order is not explained. Why, without waiting for response, was the decision taken to open the financial bids is not explained. Why and under what circumstances, in spite of adverse report, decision was taken to select respondents No. 7 and 8 and then give them work order is not explained. Why, all of a sudden, such urgency in supplies to be made was decided is not explained. In none of the deliberations brought on record is there any mention that 50% supplies had to be completed before 15th of March, 2009 yet when work order was issued, such a stipulation was made. These facts clearly, in my view, demonstrate how official authority was abused to favour to individuals much to the detriment of the petitioners. 11. But the question now is that what relief can the petitioners be granted for they have been unjustly shut out. Even though the petitioners have challenged the veracity of the statements regarding supplies as made by respondents No. 7 and 8 of which nothing has been taken by the State in their several counter affidavits, I take it that almost full supplies have been made and full payments be made. In that respect, the petitioners cannot get any relief even though they were mala fide sidelined. But at the same time, the Court cannot shut its eyes to what has happened, how it has happened and how things were wrongly manoeuvred in favour of respondents No. 7 and 8. If this Court were to leave things as it is, it would be travesty of justice where a wrong action goes untouched. 12. I, therefore, having considered the matter, deem it appropriate that the State Cabinet Vigilance Bureau should take up investigation into this whole affair and if found proper initiate appropriate proceeding under the Bihar Prevention of Specified Corrupt Practices Act, 1983. 13. A report of their investigation should be filed before this Court within three months from today. 14. It is only this little justice that the Court can do in the disturbing facts, as noted above, which are necessary to stop such blatant malpractices and abuse and misuse of authority. 15. With these observations and directions, the writ application stands disposed of.