Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 736 (GAU)

Saraighat Photo Types Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Assam

2019-06-12

A.K.GOSWAMI, MANISH CHOUDHURY

body2019
JUDGMENT : A.K. Goswami, J. 1. Heard Mr. S.K. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Talukdar, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1 and Mr. P.N. Goswami, learned counsel for Respondents No. 2 to 5. 2. This intra-court appeal is presented against the order dated 3.4.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 1959 of 2019. The learned Single Judge by the order under appeal, directed the respondents to consider allocating printing of free textbooks for Class-XI or any other equivalent work to the petitioner. 3. The writ petition was filed praying for a Writ of Certiorari to set aside and quash the Expression of Interest dated 13.6.2018 for printing of free textbooks for the respondent Corporation and also a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent authorities to forthwith allocate work orders for printing the text books for the academic sessions 2018-2019 in terms of the Expression of Interest. 4. Ex-facie, the above prayers made in the writ petition are contradictory. On one hand, the petitioner has sought for setting aside the Expression of Interest dated 13.6.2018 and, at the same breath, the petitioner is also seeking a Writ of Mandamus for allotment of printing works on the basis of the very same Expression of Interest dated 13.6.2018. 5. There is one more prayer in the writ petition which is to the effect that a Writ of Mandamus be issued directing the respondents to release the outstanding dues of the petitioner for the sessions 2016-17 and 2017-18. A perusal of the impugned order goes to show that this part of the prayer was not addressed. 6. Mr. S.K. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the respondent authorities are not following uniform criteria for allocating works to the applicants who are empanelled subsequent to the submission of applications responding to the Expression of Interest issued by the respondent Corporation. He has submitted that there can be no justification for excluding the appellant who was placed at Serial No. 1 in the list of empanelled printers and the respondents have adopted a pick and choose method in distributing works at their own sweet will. Therefore, it is imperative that a direction is issued to the respondent authorities to follow accepted norms in the matter of distribution of State largesse. 7. Mr. Therefore, it is imperative that a direction is issued to the respondent authorities to follow accepted norms in the matter of distribution of State largesse. 7. Mr. P.N. Goswami, learned counsel for Respondents No. 2 to 5, on the other hand, has submitted that for the Session 2019-2020, all works have been allocated and, therefore, at this point of time, for the Session 2019-2020, it will not be possible for the respondents to allocate printing of free textbooks to the appellant but if the appellant responds to the fresh Expression of Interest issued for the year 2020-2021, its case will be invariably considered. He contends that enlisting of name at Serial No. 1 does not mean that the appellant was placed at Serial No. 1 based on merit and this placement is only incidental. He, however, submits that it was not justifiable on the part of the Corporation to exclude the appellant in the matter of allotment of works for the Session 2019-20. In the same context, it is submitted by him, with reference to the Expression of Interest dated 27.5.2016 issued for the year 2017-2018, which is available at Page-96, that the appellant was enlisted subsequent to its participation in the Expression of Interest dated 27.05.2016 and was also allocated a number of works, value of which is more than of Rs. 45 lakhs. He also submits that the rates for printing of free textbooks is fixed and the papers are also supplied for the printing purpose and the works are allocated to the empanelled printers based on their capabilities. Once a printer is enlisted, it should normally be entitled to some printing works, he contends. 8. The writ petition was filed in the month of March, 2019 and it appears from the averments made in the writ petition that the work orders were issued in the month of September, 2018 onwards. May be the appellant waited expecting that it will also be allocated some works, but that was not to be. However, one aspect which the Court cannot be oblivious of, in view of the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents, that all printing works for the Session 2019-2020 had been allocated and that printing is normally required to be done within a period of 45 days from the date of issue of the work order. 9. However, one aspect which the Court cannot be oblivious of, in view of the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents, that all printing works for the Session 2019-2020 had been allocated and that printing is normally required to be done within a period of 45 days from the date of issue of the work order. 9. In the backdrop of the above factual scenario, we are of the considered opinion that no interference is called for with the order of the learned Single Judge. However, as there was no consideration in respect of payment for the works executed by the appellant, we direct the respondent authorities to verify the bills of the appellant and, if any amount is found due and payable, the same shall be paid within a period of three months. We would also like to observe that the respondents will bear in mind the avowed principles of transparency and openness which are required to be followed in the matter of distribution of State largesse. 10. With the above observations and directions, the writ appeal stands disposed of.