EKTA OFFSET PVT LTD Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Mr Apurva Dave, learned AGP waives service of Rule for respondent Nos. 1 and 3. Mr. Niral Mehta waives service of Rule for respondent No. 2.

(2.) IN this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 2. 8. 2008 (Annexure "k") of the Collector, District Election Officer and Collector, District Kheda at Nadiad blacklisting the petitioner from submitting any tenders/quotations for any Government work in Kheda District.

(3.) IT appears that the petitioner was awarded the contract for making all the arrangements for the elections to the State Assembly in the year 2007, particularly printing, supply of stationery, catering and providing booths/pandals for the election purposes. The petitioner's case is that while the work orders were passed by the Collector pursuant to the above contract, there were also several items which the petitioner had supplied upon requisitions by the Mamlatdars of the concerned talukas, who were in charge of the election arrangements in the concerned constituencies. It appears that the petitioner submitted the bills for the aforesaid goods/services provided by the petitioner for amounts aggregating to Rs. 76,64,592/ -. It is the petitioner's case that after submission of the bills in December, 2007, since the payments were not being made towards the said bills, the petitioner sent reminders and thereafter ultimately sent notice dated 25. 2. 2008 to the Collector through its learned advocate. However, instead of making payments as demanded by the petitioner, the Collector issued show cause notices dated 12. 3. 2008 and 16. 6. 2008 calling upon the petitioner to show cause why the petitioner should not be blacklisted for having submitted excessive bills for the amounts far in excess of the amounts otherwise payable as per the work orders and also for submitting bills at the rates higher than the rates specified in the contract. The petitioner submitted its reply dated 14. 3. 2008 and 27. 6. 2008. The petitioner submitted that apart from supplying items as per the work orders, the petitioner had supplied several items as per oral orders/instructions of the Mamlatdars and that there were many similar items for which the petitioner submitted consolidated bills as the items were like pencils, safety pins, etc. The petitioner also submitted that the arrangements made by the petitioner for polling booths and such other arrangements were actually provided for three to four days as per the requirements and as per the practice of the election authorities followed for the last many elections, particularly the catering arrangements/mandap arrangements, strong rooms and other ancillary services provided by the petitioner to the election authorities were to the extent of Rs. 42,86,790/-, but the payment was made only to the tune of Rs. 7,68,194/- on the basis that such arrangements were required to be made only for one day.