(1.) The subject-matter of challenge in this writ application is the acceptance of the tender submitted by respondent No. 6. Narayan Roy for supply of dietary articles in the hospitals of the Murshidabad District arbitrarily and in violation of the principles of natural justice. The facts of this case as well as the case of Tapan Kumar Ghosh are almost identical and as such the statement of the facts of Barun Kumar Sinha's case will suffice for the purpose of decisions of these two rules.
(2.) The petitioner Barun Kumar Sinha who has been supplying dietary articles in the State-owned hospitals in Murshidabad since 1974 submitted a tender in pursuance of tender notice issued by the Chief Medical Officer of Health. Murshidabad, respondent No. 2, for the year 1981-82 inviting tenders from bona fide contractors for supply of dietary articles. It has been stated in the said notice that the intending tenderers shall quote overall percentage of rate for each category of contract in each zone falling in Fart-I either 'Above' or 'At par' or 'Below' the schedule of rates prepared for the purpose. It has been further stated in the said notice that in respect of the State-owned hospitals and health centres falling under zone in Part-II the intending tenderers may quote overall percentage of one rate for three categories of contracts either 'Above' or 'Below' the schedule of rates as one contract for each zone lor three categories as shown in Part-II. A copy of the schedule of rates and the tender form, it has been stated in the tender notice, is obtainable from the office of the respondent No. 2 on payment of Rs. 5/- in Treasury Challan to be deposited on week days and the last date for submission of tenders was fixed on 30-4-1981 up to 12 noon. It is also stated therein that the tenders would be opened on 30-4-1981 at 3 p.m. The selection of tenders and acceptance of rates would be communicated to the parties concerned by the respondent No. 2 for and on behalf of the Government of West Bengal. It has also been provided in the tender notice that the Governor of West Bengal reserves the right to reject any tender without assigning any reason thereof and acceptance of lowest rates will not be obligatory to the contracting officer. This tender notice has been annexed as annexure 'B' to the petition. A schedule of rates of dietary articles for the year 1981-82 categorywise has been annexed as annexure 'A' to the petition. The tender submitted by the petitioner has been annexed as annexure 'C' to the petition and the rates quoted therein for all three categories of articles are much lower than the rates submitted by the respondent No. 6 and the rates offered by the petitioner are the lowest rates. On Apr. 30, 1981. at 3 p. m. all the tenders were opened in the office of the respondent No. 2. On 9th of May, 1981. the petitioner came to know from the office of the respondent No. 2 that respondent No. 6 was selected for supply of dietary articles for the year 1981-82 in the hospitals within the district of Murshidabad. It has been stated that the respondent No. 6 was not a bona fide contractor as he has no experience as a diet contractor and the respondent No. 6 is a close associate of the respondent No. 2. the Chief Medical Officer of Health. Murshidabad and as such this unusual award of contract in favour of respondent No. 6 has been made. It has also been submitted that no reason has been assigned in not accepting the fender wherein the lowest rate was quoted for supply of these dietary articles bv the petitioner, nor any opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before rejecting his tender. It has been submitted that the order of appointment made by the Dietary Committee consisting of respondents Nos. 1 to 5 is arbitrary and discriminatory and no reasons have been assigned for appointing respondent No. 6 as successful contractor. It has also been submitted that this appointment is in contravention of the fundamental right of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constn. of India. This writ application along with other applications was also moved before this court and the instant rules were obtained. There was also interim order of maintaining status quo as on that day regarding supply of dietary articles to the . hospitals for three weeks with liberty to pray for extension of the period on the same application upon notice to the respondents.
(3.) On 17th June, 1981. after hearing the learned advocates for all the parties the interim order was extended till the disposal of the rules. The petitioners Barun Kumar Sinha and Tapan Kumar Ghosh it was stated therein, would continue to supply dietary articles on and from 18-6-1981. Thereafter on 6th of July. 1981. the matter was mentioned by the learned advocate for the petitioner who made an application for clarification of the above order and after hearing the parties the order passed on 17-6-1981 was modified to the extent that Tapan Kumar Ghosh who did not supply dietary articles from the date of issuance of this Rule cannot be permitted to continue to supply dietary articles on and from 18-6-1981 on the basis of the interim order of maintaining status quo.