RAY TRADING COMPANY Vs. INDIAN RED CROSS SOCIETY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this writ petition challenges the action of opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 in accepting the quotation offered by opposite party No. 3 for supply of mosquito nets.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner is a proprietorship firm, which deals in mosquito nets and cloths etc. and is also a general order supplier. It is claimed that the petitioner has a good name in the trade circle in the State and is one of the most reliable and dependable dealer and a genuine supplier in the field. Considering the above fact, as per the petitioner, O.P. No. 1 Indian Red Cross Society, Orissa State Branch Committee, on 3.8.2001 called for quotations from the petitioner for supply of mosquito nets vide Annexure -2 in order to provide the same along with other relief materials to the people of Orissa affected by the high and devastating flood of 2001 under the Orissa Disaster Mitigation Programme. Pursuant to Annexure -2, the petitioner submitted its quotation, O.P. No. 3 and others also submitted their quotations. On 10.8.2001 the petitioner came to know that O.P. No. 1 illegally entered into a negotiation with O.P. No. 3 -M/S. Sheolal Barwarilal, which quoted Rs. 138/ -per piece of single size mosquito net as against Rs. 1347 - quoted by the petitioner for the self -same quality of material and finally accepted the quotation of O.P. No. 3, which has reduced its price to Rs. 134/ -, i.e. the price quoted by the petitioner. It is alleged by the petitioner that though the rate quoted by the petitioner was the lowest, without making any negotiation with it, O.P. No. 1 illegally negotiated with O.P. No. 3 behind its back and placed orders with O.P. No. 3 to supply the aforesaid item. That apart, it is stated that the terms and conditions laid down in Annexure -2 are neither supported by law nor are they based on established practice and Procedure and, therefore. O.P. No. 1 has committed gross illegality and irregularity in accepting the quotation of O.P. No. 3 by ignoring the lowest quotation offered by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, award the supply order to O.P. No. 3 is the result of such Procedural irregularity as well as the same is opposed to public policy and, therefore, the agreement entered into between O.P. No. 1 and O.P. No. 3 for supply of the material in question by quashed.

(3.) IN the case at hand, I do find any illegality in the decision -making process or any irregularity as alleged. From the allegations, it transpires that the grievance of the petitioner is that it was not given an opportunity to negotiate while finalising the quotations and if such an opportunity would have been given, the petitioner could have reduced the price quoted earlier by it. On going through the minutes of the meeting of the Purchase committee (Annexure -G/1), it appears that admittedly the quality of the material offered by O.P. No. 3 was better than that offered by the petitioner and taking that aspect into consideration, the Purchase Committee have decided to go for the material offered by O.P. No. 3.