Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 889 (JHR)

Madhukar Kumar v. State of Jharkhand

2015-07-30

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2015
ORDER : Aggrieved by tender notice published in daily newspaper “Prabhat Khabar” on 22.07.2015, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. The petitioner entered into an agreement for supply of food-grains under “Door Step Delivery” scheme on 01.08.2014 which was valid upto 31.03.2015. For the subsequent year another agreement was executed on 11.03.2015 which was valid upto 31.03.2016. During the currency of the agreement executed between the parties, the respondent-Deputy Commissioner has issued advertisement on 22.07.2015 inviting applications for supply of food-grains under “Door Step Delivery” scheme. Aggrieved the petitioner has approached this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has previously executed work under agreement dated 01.08.2014 without complain. For the subsequent year, another agreement has been executed on 11.03.2015 and there has been no complain against the petitioner. The said agreement is subsisting till 31.03.2016 however, for the remaining period, the impugned advertisement has been issued which has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner. It is submitted that for executing work under agreement dated 11.03.2015, the petitioner has invested huge amount and he had arranged vehicles for transportation of food-grains and thus, the petitioner has altered his position. The respondents are bound under agreement dated 11.03.2015 to permit the petitioner to execute the work under agreement. The agreement cannot be terminated without issuing a show-cause notice and disclosing the reason for awarding the work under the said agreement to another tenderer by inviting advertisement dated 22.07.2015. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State of Jharkhand submits that advertisement dated 22.07.2015 has been issued in view of the National Food Security Act, 2013. The State is under a duty to implement the provisions of the said Act and therefore, in the changed circumstances, advertisement dated 22.07.2015 has been issued. 4. I have carefully considered the rival contentions raised on behalf of the parties and perused the documents on record. 5. No doubt, agreement dated 11.03.2015 is subsisting and it was to expire on 31.03.2016 however, advertisement dated 22.07.2015 discloses that the said advertisement has been issued for implementation of provisions under National Food Security Act, 2013. Though, the petitioner has averred that he has invested huge amount and arranged vehicles for transportation of food-grains, no detail whatsoever has been disclosed in the writ petition. Though, the petitioner has averred that he has invested huge amount and arranged vehicles for transportation of food-grains, no detail whatsoever has been disclosed in the writ petition. What was the quantum of work executed by the petitioner under agreement dated 11.03.2015 has not been disclosed by him. Clause 12 of the agreement provides that the contractor would start lifting food-grains on receipt of allotment letters. The frequency of allotment and transportation of food-grains have not been disclosed by the petitioner. Investment in a commercial transaction is a normal incidence of business. The contention that the petitioner employed several vehicles appears to be not correct. Clause 7 of the agreement indicates that an agreement has been signed with vehicle owners for engaging 12 vehicles for transportation of food-grains. No detail of additional vehicle, if any, arranged by the petitioner has been disclosed in the writ petition. Neither foundational and necessary facts have been pleaded nor plea of promissory-estoppal or legitimate expectation has been raised in the writ petition. 6. As noticed above, advertisement dated 22.07.2015 indicates the intention of the State to implement the provisions of the National Food Security Act. No allegation of malafide has been levelled against the person holding the post of Deputy Commissioner. It has not been contended that the advertisement dated 22.07.2015 would affect the public interest. In the matters concerning award of tender, the Writ Court must exercise power with great care and caution. The decision of the authorities is generally not interfered unless, it is actuated with malafide or the decision is manifestly against public interest. No such circumstance has been disclosed by the petitioner in the writ petition. 7. The agreement dated 11.03.2015 is not a statutory contract. It has not been executed on behalf of the Government of Jharkhand. It has been executed to implement a scheme. The advertisement dated 22.07.2015 discloses that the government has taken a decision to implement the provisions of the National Food Security Act, 2013 from 01.09.2015. For implementing the decision of the Government, issuance of advertisement dated 22.07.2015 must be held to be in public interest. In view of the government decision, notice is not required to be issued to the petitioner. The only fetter on exercise of discretion by executive authority is to adopt a procedure which promotes public interest, public purpose and public good. For implementing the decision of the Government, issuance of advertisement dated 22.07.2015 must be held to be in public interest. In view of the government decision, notice is not required to be issued to the petitioner. The only fetter on exercise of discretion by executive authority is to adopt a procedure which promotes public interest, public purpose and public good. In “Michigan Rubber (India) Limited vs. State of Karnataka and others” (2012) 8 SCC 216 , it has been held that, “if the State or its instrumentalities act reasonably, fairly and in public interest in awarding contract, here again, interference by court is very restrictive since no person can claim a fundamental right to carry on business with the Government.” 8. Considering the above facts, I find no merit and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.