GULABDAS AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner, who is engaged in the business of sale and purchase of Tendu leaves and of bidi-manufacture, challenges the legality of the appointment under rule 7 (7) of the Madhya Prade3h Tendu Patta (Vyapar Viniyaman) Niyamavali, 1965, [Rules framed under the Madhya Pradesh Tendu Patta (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam,1964, and called the Rules], of respondent No. 5, M/s M. Ishaq M. Gulam, Bidi Manufacturers, Katni, as purchaser of Tendu leaves for Singhpur and Burhar units of Shahdol Forest Range, and seeks a direction restraining the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 from giving effect to that appointment He also prays that a direction be issued to the said respondents for accepting his offer of being appointed under rule 7 as purchaser for the two units, Singhpur and Burhar.

(2.) THE scheme of the M.P. Tendu Patta (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1964, and the Rules thereunder has been examined by this Court in G. J. Patel & Co. v. State of M.P.(1965 MPLJ 733) and C.J. Patel & Co. v. State of M.P.(1865 MPLJ 994) where the question of the true construction of rule 7 and of the new sub-rule (7-A) inserted in rule 7 came up for consideration. It is unnecessary to repeat here all that has been said in those cases on the scheme of the Act and the Rules and about the meaning and effect of rule 7. It is sufficient to say that in those cases, it has been held that the power given by sub-rule (7) of rule 7 to the Government to appoint any person as purchaser for a unit or units on mutually agreed upon terms can be exercised only when valid tenders are received for a unit or units but the Government finds all those tenders unacceptable on merits. It is this sub-rule of rule 7 that is relevant in the present case.

(3.) SHRI Sen, learned counsel for the applicant, argued that the power under sub-rule (7) of rule 7 of oppointing purchasers on terms and conditions mutually agreed upon could be exercised by the Government only if the tenders received for the unit or units were not considered acceptable; that the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 did not take any decision in regard to the tender submitted by the applicant in response to the second notice issued on 5th March 1965; that, therefore, it could not be said that the tender received from the applicant was found to be unacceptable and consequently the power conferred by sub- rule (7) could not be exercised; and that thus the appoint meat of the respondent No. 5 as purchaser was invalid. There is no substance in this contention. It is true that the power conferred by sub-rule (7) can be exercised only when tenders received for a unit or units are not considered acceptable. But, here, the tender which the petitioner submitted in response to the second notice was in fact rejected as the rates quoted by him were below the minimum acceptable rates. The petitioner has no doubt said that no decision was taken by the Government on the tender submitted by him. This statement made by the applicant has been denied in the return. It is also inconsistent with the petitioner's own conduct in making a fresh offer for the purchase of Tendu leaves on 21st March 1965, that is, after the meeting addressed by the Forest Minister on 20th March 1965 at which the persons desirous of purchasing Tendu leaves were asked to come with their offers to Bhopal. The applicant would not have made this second offer if the tender given by him on 16th March 1965 had been still pending. The making of a fresh offer by him on 21st March 1965 itself shows that his earlier tender had been rejected and he knew fully that it had been rejected on merits. There is thus no force in the contention that the conditions for the exercise of the power conferred by sub-rule (7) did not exist.