STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. S C AGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These four Misc. Civil Applications are filed to review and recall the judgment and order passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 8579 of 1997 on December 15, 1997. As these four applications are pertaining to one and the same matter and are against one and the same order and the relief sought for is one and the same, I am disposing of these four Misc. Civil Applications by this common judgment.

(2.) Special Civil Application No. 8679 of 1997 was filed by S.C. Agrawal, managing partner of Confised Printers against the present applicants to challenge the action of the applicant in Misc. Civil Application No. 35 of 1998 by which they gave a contract of supplying 'Khedut Poti' to the original respondents No. 4 to 6 who are the applicants in other 3 applications viz., Misc. Civil Applications No. 45 of 1998, 48 of 1998 and 50 of 1998 respectively. It was the claim of the said petitioner who is respondent No. 1 in all these Misc. Civil Applications that said action of the applicant in Misc. Civil Application No. 35 of 1998 was contravening the provisions of Arts. 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India and to quash and set aside the said contracts executed by the present applicants original respondents No. 1 to 3 in favour of the original respondents No. 4 to 6. It was the claim of the applicant that the cost money of the said work is nearly Rs. 5 crores and the said contract work was given without following the normal procedure of calling for the tenders by issuing public advertisement. Said contract was also contrary to the Resolution passed by Government of Gujarat that any work involving the amount of more than Rs. 25,000/- was to be given by issuing advertisement and by calling tenders. It was further alleged by him that said contract was given in order to do favoritism. It was also claimed by him that the cost of printing of one 'Khedut Poti' given to the respondents Nos. 4 to 6 was excessive. According to him, he was ready to supply said 'Khedut Poti' at the rate of Rs. 51- per copy; whereas the respondents No. 4 to 6 were giving the costs of Rs. 0.95 p. per copy. That selection of respondents No. 4 to 6 for the said work was not honest and proper. The respondent No. 1 in this application as original petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 8579 of 1997 had also sought an interim relief in the said application to restrain the respondents No. 4 to 6 to proceed further with the said contract and further to restrain the respondents No. 1 to 3 from making any further payments to the respondents Nos. 4 to 6.

(3.) When the said petition came up for admission before my learned predecessor, my learned predecessor was pleased to pass the following order :