S C AGRAWAL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petition is heard at length for more than 2 days. All the respondents have filed affidavit-in-reply. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have also filed additional affidavit. In the above circumstances and in view of the nature of the petition and the facts of the case, I issue Rule and proceed to finally dispose of this petition.

(2.) Mr. S. C. Agrawal, Managing Partner of Confisec Printers, Ahmedabad has filed the present petition to challenge the contract entered into by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in favour of respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 as regards the work of printing and supplying KHEDUT POTHI. The State Government of Gujarat had decided to prepare KHEDUT POTHI and to deliver the same to the individual farmers of the State. In the said KHEDUT POTHI the details regarding the land holdings of the villagers and other details regarding his land holdings are to be entered in the said KHEDUT POTHI. The said KHEDUT POTHI was to be maintained in duplicate. One was to be retained with the Revenue Department in the office of the Village Talati and one was to be retained by the village farmer. The State Government had assessed to prepare about 1 crore of KHEDUT POTHIS. The State Government had issued an advertisement on 28-2-1997 inviting tenders but it seems that in the said advertisement of inviting tenders certain conditions and norms were prescribed which were included not only in the advertisement but also in the tender form. It was allegation of some of the printers that the said conditions and norms were prescribed in order to favour some particular printer. Therefore, Gujarat Rajya Shala Pathya Pustak Association had filed S.C.A. No. 2049 of 1997 to challenge the said advertisement and to challenge the action of the State Government in regard to giving of the said contract for printing KHEDUT POTHI by alleging that the conditions were put to favour Government particular private printers. The said petition was filed on 6-3-1997 after the advertisement for calling for tenders was published on 28-2- 1997. This Court was pleased to issue notice to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 who are respectively respondent No. 2 and 1 in this petition. That petition came before the Court on 18-3-1997. The learned Government Pleader made a statement before the Court that the State Government has cancelled the advertisement whereby tenders in question were invited and therefore, the petition has become infructuous. This Court recorded that statement of the learned Government Pleader and disposed of the said petition. It is the claim of the petitioner that the said statement was made by the learned Government Pleader as respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had realised that it was very difficult for them to defend their action and that there was likelihood of they being exposed. It is further stated by the petitioner that at the time of making the same statement before this Court in earlier proceeding, the Government had also made its stand publicly clear that the Government was not issuing tender to any party and the same work of printing and preparing KHEDUT POTHI will be done by the Government Press itself. It is further alleged by the petitioner that on the floor of the House on 18-1-1997 the then Chief Minister had made a statement while giving reply to the question of one of the M.L.A.s regarding the preparation of the said KHEDUT POTHI; that the Government Press was competent to do the work and that the work was being done through the Government Printing Press.

(3.) It is further claim of the petitioner that in pursuance of the tender notice issued on 28-2-1997 the present petitioner and about 22 other printers had purchased the tender papers-forms for the said printing of KHEDUT POTHI but in view of the cancellation of the said tender advertisement and in view of the decision taken by the State Government to print and prepare the said KHEDUT POTHI through its own presses, the petitioner and other printers had no alternative than to keep mum. It is further alleged by the petitioner that thereafter the work of printing and preparing the said KHEDUT POTHI was carried out in the Government Presses. But all of a sudden the Government again decided to give that work to other outside agencies without calling any tender and without issuing a public advertisement. This news appeared in Gujarat Samachar on 9-2- 1997. He also came to know that the respondent No. 4 was given the work of preparing 36 lacs copies of KHEDUT POTHI. Print Vision Pvt. LIMITED, respondent No. 5 was given the work of preparing 7 lacs copies and Gujarat Offset Works, respondent No. 6 was given the job of preparing 6 lacs of copies and that was done without inviting any public tender and without following the process set out in the Government Resolution. It is the contention of the petitioner that these respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 are to get printing material, i.e., paper from the Government and they have to carry out the work of printing as well as binding, sewing and laminating the cover page of the said KHEDUT POTHI. It is his claim that the said job costs only Rs. 3.00 per copy as per the Government Resolution but the said work is entrusted to the respondents at the rate of Rs. 8.95 per copy. It is his claim that he can undertake the responsibility of undertaking the said job by supplying each copy at the cost of Rs. 5.00 only. Thus, according to him in the jobwork of 50 lacs copies there is a clear margin of Rs. 4/ - per copy and thus there is illegal spending of nearly Rs. 2 crores of public money. It is his claim that this job which will cost Rs. 2 crores excess has been granted by the respondents for illegal consideration. There must be some bribe and kickback and sharing profits by the Government and its officers with respondent Nos. 4 to 6. Thus, according to the petitioner the said action of the respondent is clearly case of fraud of public money and misuse of public funds. The said action is illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable and therefore, this Court should intervene and cancel the said agreements in favour of respondent Nos. 4 to 6 and to direct the State Government to recover the amounts paid to respondent Nos. 4 to 6.