MADHUKAR PARIHAR, DIVISIONAL MANAGER Vs. BHASKAR JYOTI BARMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K.Ch. Gautam and also seen an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

(2.) Brief facts of the case "leading to the filing of the instant Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is that the Director, Directorate of Food Civil Supplier & Consumer Affairs Shillong had floated a tender for supplies of sugar through Fair Price Shops in the State of Meghalaya vide Notice inviting tender No. DSCA.18/2013/45 dated 6/11/2013 wherein the Petitioner and the Respondent along with 8 (eight) other bidders had submitted their tender. The Petitioner came out successful as the lowest bidder at the opening of financial bids on 6/03/2014 and the work order was awarded to the Petitioner for a period of one year. The crux of the matter is the work order allotted to the Petitioner, the Respondent could not emerge successful in the bid and is filing frivolous litigations to harass the Petitioner. The Petitioner has obtained work by bidding in the tender as a private tenderee and has not relied upon the Government Order F.No. 14/12/94-Welfare (II) dated 05.07.2007 for obtaining the work order in question. In fact the Government Order F. No. 14/12/94 - Welfare (II) dated 05.07.2007 is not at all applicable in the facts of the present case and Respondent/Complainant has mislead the Court below with wrong facts and misleading averments. The fact that Your Petitioner has obtained work by bidding in the tender as a general entity and has not relied upon Government Order F.No. 14/12/94 - Welfare (II) dated 05.07.2007 for obtaining the work order as the same has no application to the tender, the Respondent has relied upon the said O.M. dated 5.7.2007 and O.M. dated 19.2.2015. As a matter of record the petitioner does not require any specific trade license whatsoever to sell sugar in view of Notification dated 15.02.2002 issued by the Central Govt. No. SRO A- 22/2003.

(3.) The Respondent has filed the present complaint to vent out his frustration in not being able to come out a successful bidder and is filing the present complaint with the sole purpose to harass the Petitioner in as much as initially the Respondent had filed a writ petition challenging the work order allotted to the Petitioner and the same was registered and numbered as W.P.C No. 218 of 2005 which was withdrawn by the Respondent. Thereafter another writ petition was preferred by the Respondent/Complainant being W.P.C. No. 222 of 2015 challenging the same work order and on perusal of which this Hon'ble High Court found serious drafting errors in the prayer portion and therefore the same was withdrawn with liberty to file fresh, thereafter the Respondent/Complainant preferred for another writ petition being W.P.C No. 233 of 2015 challenging the work order allotted to the petitioner. This Hon'ble Court Vide its Judgment and Order dated 27/10/2015 was pleased to dispose of the same as the same had become infructuous. The present Complaint is nothing but flagrant abuse of the process of law moreover the complaint is an authorized representative of "Tirupati Agro seed Distributor Pvt. Ltd authorized to promote the company" and does not possess any board resolution of "Tirupati Agro seed Distributor Pvt. Ltd." thereby authorizing the present Complainant to file the complaint in question against the Petitioner. Moreover, a perusal of the board resolution filed along with the complaint reveals that the Respondent herein has been appointed by "Tirupati Agro seed Distributor Pvt. Ltd." only for the purpose of promoting the company and its activities and increase the financial turnover of the company and there is no board resolution by "Tirupati Agro seed Distributor Pvt. Ltd." in favour of the Respondent authorizing him to file the instant complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, therefore, in absence thereof of any proper authority in favour of the Petitioner by "Tirupati Agro seed Distributor Pvt. Ltd."