Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 363 (TRI)

Selim Miah and Anr. v. State of Tripura and Anr.

2014-11-11

DEEPAK GUPTA, S.TALAPATRA

body2014
JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta; CJ. 1. This Court is not at all impressed with the petition made for extension of time. From the averments made in the petition, it is more than apparent that on one pretext of the other, the Supply Advisory Board, the SAB in short, is trying to somehow avoid the directions given by this Court. 2. This Court in W.P. (C) No. 85 of 2014 unequivocally found that the procedure followed by the SAB was totally improper. However, instead of setting aside the decision of the SAB and imposing its own decision, this Court remitted the matter back to the SAB with a direction that the SAB should consider the matter afresh in the light of the report of the Forest Department, which is the department concerned and accordingly, take a decision. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows: "9. We could have decided the matter on our own, but this Court normally refrains from substituting it's opinion for the opinion of the executive. Therefore, we remit the matter to the SAB who shall take into consideration the observation made by us above. They shall specifically consider the objection of Md. Selim Miah that the tender of Bahadur Alam is not a valid tender. The SAB may also keep in mind that if the State takes the stand in a particular case that non production of such documents does not make the tender invalid this could have a cascading effect on many other tenders. The SAB must also take into consideration the notings made by the Officers of the Forest Department who are running the Sepahijala Zoological Park as to the requirement of animal feed and the quality thereof. Their experience with respondent, Md. Bahadur Alam should also be kept in mind before a final decision is taken. The decision should be a reasoned decision and communicated to both the parties. The decision be taken by 31st August, 2014. The feed shall continue to be supplied by Md. Bahadur Alam till 31st August, 2014 and from 1st September, 2014 the same be supplied by the tenderer found suitable for this purpose by the SAB." 3. The directions to the SAB were to take decision by 31st August, 2014 and the department was permitted to take supply of feed items on respondent No. 5, Md. Bahadur Alam only till that date. The directions to the SAB were to take decision by 31st August, 2014 and the department was permitted to take supply of feed items on respondent No. 5, Md. Bahadur Alam only till that date. The SAB instead of complying with the directions of the Court took a decision on 21st July, 2014 to re-invite tenders and the relevant portion of the decision is as follows: "After carefully going through the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court on the subject and considering relevant papers of the Forest Department, the SAB made the following recommendations: (i) Keeping in view the directions of the Hon'ble High Court and views of the Law Department, it will be prudent for the Department to go for fresh tender. (ii) For the purpose of floating fresh tender, the Department should formulate terms and conditions clearly indicating (a) the material required, (b) experience of the bidder (without making it restrictive) (c) technical and price bid to be invited and evaluated separately, (d) proper inspection and certification before making payment , (e) the annual requirement may be indicated based on the average of actual in the past three years, (f) responsibility may be fixed on the officers handling the case and the supplier in the event of any omission/casual approach. (iii) Efforts should be made for inviting tender, processing and finalizing it within two months i.e., latest by 30-09-2014. The existing arrangement may continue till 30-09-2014 and new arrangement w.e.f. 01-10-2014 till 31-03-2015. Fresh tender for 1015-16 may be invited by 07-01-2015 and finalized by 07-03-2015. (iv) The position of action taken may be submitted before Hon'ble Court with request to give time upto 30-09-2014 for finalizing the matter." 4. The State also moved an application for grant of time and along with this application, this petition was annexed. 5. We had accepted the request of the State and extended the time upto 30th September, 2014. The time was extended at the request of the State. The State had requested time upto 30th September, 2014 and we had been assured that the fresh tender process would be completed by this date. We are totally unhappy with the manner in which the orders of this Court are being flouted. The officials of the State cannot have expected that any request made by them has to be accepted. The State had requested time upto 30th September, 2014 and we had been assured that the fresh tender process would be completed by this date. We are totally unhappy with the manner in which the orders of this Court are being flouted. The officials of the State cannot have expected that any request made by them has to be accepted. The senior most officials of the State had made a solemn promise to this Court to ensure that a fresh tender process is completed by 30th September, 2014. 6. We have been informed at the Bar that the tender was floated only on 11th September, 2014 and we fail to understand how it could have been completed by 30th September, 2014. The petitioner in writ petition No. 85 of 2014 has taken part in the tender. We cannot permit the respondent No. 5 to continue supplying the items to the zoo in total violation of the orders of this Court. We, therefore, direct that no supply from respondent No. 5 shall be taken after 15th November, 2014 and from 16th November, 2014 onwards the Forest Department shall be responsible to arrange for the food at his own level whatever be the cost. The finalization of the tender process should also be completed by 31st December, 2014. 7. In view of the order passed and in view of the fact that the petitioner has taken part in the fresh tender process, he cannot be permitted to challenge the fresh tender. The writ petition has to be rejected. Therefore, the writ petition as well as the C.M. application stand disposed of with the aforesaid directions.