ORDER : 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking quashment of tender notice insofar as it pertains to Taluk Entry Nos. 33 and 34-Kanakapura and Magadi and has sought a consequential direction to issue work order in favour of the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr. Mohammed Tahir, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Dhyan Chinnappa, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents. 3. Brief facts that lead the petitioner to this Court in the subject writ petition, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows: The petitioner claims to be proprietor of a transport firm and a contractor with the Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department for a very long time. The issue that drives the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition is that the 1st respondent issued a notice inviting tender on 28-01-2022 calling for applications from eligible tenderers for transportation of food grains from the FCI Godown to other godowns in the Taluks for the years between 01-03-2022 to 29-02-2024. The petitioner participated in the bid and had emerged as the successful bidder being L1. After the declaration of the petitioner to be L1 and awarding tender to the petitioner, re-tender notification is issued for 39 Taluks which included the tender that was awarded to the petitioner i.e. Kanakapura and Magadi Taluks. It is this act of issuance of retender that drives the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that pursuant to tender notification dated 28-01-2022 the petitioner who had participated in the tender emerged as a lowest bidder for Kanakapura and Magadi Taluks and had been awarded the tender. In the interregnum a development happened with regard to the petitioner having been falsely implicated in a crime in Crime No. 158 of 2022 which this Court quashed by its order dated 17-08-2022 in W.P. No. 12602 of 2022. Notwithstanding that a re-tender notification was issued. It is his submission that the decision to issue re-tender is not taken by the Committee but by the Commissioner alone which is contrary to law and therefore, would contend that issuance of re-tender insofar as it concerns Kanakapura and Magadi Taluks should be quashed. 5. Notwithstanding that a re-tender notification was issued. It is his submission that the decision to issue re-tender is not taken by the Committee but by the Commissioner alone which is contrary to law and therefore, would contend that issuance of re-tender insofar as it concerns Kanakapura and Magadi Taluks should be quashed. 5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate General representing the State would seek to defend the action of calling for re-tender insofar as several taluks including Kanakapura and Magadi Taluks. Proceedings, according to him, were attended to by five members who did sign at a later date on an attendance sheet and not the proceedings. He would submit that at best it is an irregularity and not an illegality. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and perused the material on record. 7. At the outset, I deem it appropriate to notice that merely because criminal proceedings against the petitioner have been quashed would not mean that proceedings under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (‘the Act’ for short) cannot be taken against the petitioner. The proceedings under the Act which are civil in nature have no bearing on what the Court had considered in Writ Petition No. 12602 of 2022 and therefore, the petitioner cannot harp on the crime to contend that the allegations that are found in the earlier writ petition cannot even be considered on the civil side. If that was to be the only contention of the learned counsel, the petition would not have become entertainable. What the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend is, the act of the Tender Scrutiny Committee to call for re-tender on 27-07-2022 is a product of mala-fide action. The decision is taken only by the Commissioner and not by the Committee on 02-07-2022. The result of the decision is the notification of issuance of re-tender, impugned in the petition. The petition concerns only Kanakapura and Magadi Taluks at Entry Nos. 33 and 34. 8. This Court, owing to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, had summoned original records. On a perusal of original records, the Court noticed that there was gross discrepancy in what was hitherto being followed in calling for tenders and the present decision to call for re-tender. 33 and 34. 8. This Court, owing to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, had summoned original records. On a perusal of original records, the Court noticed that there was gross discrepancy in what was hitherto being followed in calling for tenders and the present decision to call for re-tender. The notice inviting tender was preceded by a proceeding of the Tender Scrutiny Committee in which the Tender Inviting Authority is also a party. The Tender Task Force Committee meets on 28-01-2022. The agenda and the attendance for the meeting are as follows: The agenda was with regard to scrutiny of financial bid and several other issues. The attendance was of five members - the Deputy Director, Vigilance and Public Distribution and other officers of the Food and Civil Supplies Department. Several decisions including the decision to call for re-tender was taken in the meeting. At the end of the proceeding only signature of the Commissioner is found and not of any other member who supposed to have attended the meeting on the said day. Though the earlier proceeding is of a Tender Task Force Committee and all of them have signed, the present proceeding is under the Chairmanship of the Commissioner. The presence of all other members being shown ought to have ascribed their signatures in the proceeding itself. What comes about in the original records is that signatures are found after several pages that too in the form of an attendance sheet of four members who were present on the day signing the sheet. Initially an affidavit was filed by the Deputy Director of Food and Civil Supplies viz. Smt. C.R. Ramya on 17-11-2022 and the said affidavit reads as follows: “AFFIDAVIT I, Ramya C.R. D/o Sri Rajashekharaiah S. aged 38 years, working as Deputy Director, Food and Civil Supply and Consumer Affairs Department, Ramangara District to-day at Bengaluru, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows: 1. I state that I have been working as Deputy Director, Food and Civil Supply and Consumer Affairs Department, Ramanagara District and I am acquainted with facts of this case through records and as such I am swearing to this affidavit. 2. I state that, this Hon’ble Court directed to file an affidavit to ascertain as to whether the proceedings dated 02-07-2022 has taken place or not? 2. I state that, this Hon’ble Court directed to file an affidavit to ascertain as to whether the proceedings dated 02-07-2022 has taken place or not? I hereby reiterate that the proceedings that taken place on 02-07-2022. The Commissioner, Food and Civil Supplies being the Tender Inviting Authority as well as Tender Accepting Authority and being the Chairman of Financial Evaluation Committee in the case alone has signed the said proceeding report. However, other members have signed to the attendance register. Copy of the same are annexed along with this affidavit. Therefore, the allegations of the petitioner that there were no proceedings taken place is false and baseless. 3. I submit that, therefore, accept this information and dispose of the writ petition. Tender process is stilled. Wherefore, I respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to accept this affidavit, in the interest of justice and equity. Sd/- Deponent.” (Emphasis added) In the affidavit it is stated that the Commissioner, Food and Civil Supplies being the Tender Inviting Authority as well as Tender Accepting Authority and being the Chairman of Financial Evaluation Committee has signed the said proceeding report. Members only signed the attendance register. So, it is an accepted fact by the Deputy Director that the proceedings were never signed by other members who were present in the meeting. Therefore, this Court directed the officers who were present in the meeting to file their independent affidavits. Every person has filed an independent affidavit which is verbatim similar and one such affidavit filed by Smt. Sujatha D. Hosamani who is presently working as Additional Director-2, Department of Food Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs reads as follows: “AFFIDAVIT I, Sujatha D. Hosamani W/o Pramod K. Patil, aged 55 years, working as Additional Director-2, Department of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, Bengaluru, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows: 1. I submit that a meeting was called on 28-06-2022 regarding the wholesale and retail transportation tender. The intimation about the meeting was sent through e-mail. A copy of the e-mail is produced herewith. However, the said wholesale tender meeting was postponed since there was inconvenience for some of the members. The next date 2-07-21022 was communicated to all members telephonically. 2. According to the schedule, I was present at the meeting held on 02-07-2022 and I have signed the attendance sheet of the meeting. A copy of the e-mail is produced herewith. However, the said wholesale tender meeting was postponed since there was inconvenience for some of the members. The next date 2-07-21022 was communicated to all members telephonically. 2. According to the schedule, I was present at the meeting held on 02-07-2022 and I have signed the attendance sheet of the meeting. The proceedings, as pet usual practice and precedent has been signed by the Commissioner, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department. The members present as usual signed on the attendance sheet. The sample proceedings wherein only the Commissioner has signed which is the procedure adopted during past meeting share herewith produced and marked as Annexure-R1 series. 3. Being the member of the meeting, I have seen and examined the minutes and confirm that the same are entirely in accordance with the discussions held at the said meeting and the decisions arrived thereat are recorded correctly. I submit that the decision was taken at the meeting and signed by the Commissioner being the Chairperson of the meeting. Wherefore, I humbly submit that the above information may be taken on record in the interest of justice and equity. Sd/- Deponent.” (Emphasis added) According to this affidavit, the deponent was present in the meeting held on 02-07-2022 and has signed the attendance sheet. The proceeding, as per usual practice is that members will sign only in the attendance sheet and what was shown to them was only a sample proceeding where only the Commissioner has signed which is the procedure adopted. Therefore, a perusal of the affidavits hereinabove leads to what is latent becoming patent, as the decisions taken are not by the Committee but by the Commissioner alone. Notwithstanding the fact that the members of the Committee who were all present in the meeting have deliberated upon all the issues have not signed the proceeding but only signed the attendance sheet long after the meeting was over and the affidavit further narrates that it was only the sample proceeding that the Commissioner has signed. If that is the sample proceeding, the original records do not contain any final proceeding at all. Therefore, the decision to call for re-tender is taken on the basis of sample proceeding. It is these acts of the Government that shocks the conscience of the Court. 9. If that is the sample proceeding, the original records do not contain any final proceeding at all. Therefore, the decision to call for re-tender is taken on the basis of sample proceeding. It is these acts of the Government that shocks the conscience of the Court. 9. It is not the right of the petitioner to get the work order issued notwithstanding the allegations against him, but the fact is that the Government has acted in the manner which does not behove its status, is what merits consideration. If the proceeding and the affidavits filed by the authorities are noticed, they are at variance with each other. The first affidavit dated 17.11.2022 filed by the Deputy Director indicates that the attendance sheet was signed by members and later the Commissioner has signed the proceedings. No where the affidavits indicate that attendance sheet was signed in the morning and the proceedings were taken up during the course of the day and only sample proceedings was sent to these people signed by the Commissioner. Therefore, it becomes a mystery as to “where is the final proceeding.” If according to the affidavits filed before this Court by all other Members of the Committee it was only a sample proceeding, there is no final proceeding at all, and decisions are taken on the basis of sample proceeding only. Decisions of determination of tender being taken on sample proceeding is unknown to law. 10. The tenderers, in these cases, will not come to know as to what transpires behind the smoke screen. Therefore, the smoke from the screen will have to be warded off by bringing transparency into these proceedings, failing which, such actions become arbitrary, as one person at his whim or caprice can either allot the tender to anyone or cancel the tender and decide to issue a retender. Tender should not become a tool of arbitrary action at the hands of the State. A tenderer may not have a right to question or bring up every proceeding before this Court, but the action of the State should be transparent and inspire confidence in the decision making when records are summoned by this Court. Records seen and the affidavits filed, are a cobweb. 11. A tenderer may not have a right to question or bring up every proceeding before this Court, but the action of the State should be transparent and inspire confidence in the decision making when records are summoned by this Court. Records seen and the affidavits filed, are a cobweb. 11. The submission of the learned Additional Advocate General that it is merely an irregularity and not an illegality is sans substance, as the State is accountable and answerable for every one of its actions to the people. In the aforesaid submission and circumstances, it becomes apposite to refer to the words of Benjamin Disraeli “that all power is a trust - that we are accountable for its exercise – that, from the people, and for the people, all springs, and all must exist.” The afore-quoted words of Benjamin Disraeli have been repeatedly quoted with approval in plethora of judgments of the Apex Court, as the powers that be, should always be accountable for exercise of its power conferred by the people through the Constitution. 12. In view of the preceding analysis, I find the action outlandish, no accountability for such action in the case at hand. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to obliterate the decision to issue re-tender which comes about in a proceeding which is contrary to law and remit the matter back to the respondent/State with a direction, that henceforth, procedure which is transparent, at all stages, of the tender should be adopted, so that it would stand the scrutiny by way of judicial review when the issue is brought before the Constitutional Courts. 13. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following: ORDER: (i) Writ Petition is allowed. (ii) The proceedings dated 02.07.2022 and all actions taken thereto or in furtherance thereof, stand quashed qua the grievance of the petitioner. (iii) Liberty is reserved in the respondent/State to draw up proceedings in tune with law bearing in mind the observations made in the course of this order and pass appropriate orders, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if not earlier.