NOBLE SALES AGENCY Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner M/s. Noble Sales Agency has challenged the settlement of the contract for supply of country spirit at Silchar warehouse with the respondent 4 M/s. National Trading Corporation.

(2.) Facts, - The Government of Assam, by a public notice dated 31-7-89 published in the Assam Gazette dated 2-8-89, invited candidates to make their tenders for supply-ing potable alcohol/rectified spirit Grade I to the warehouses at Jorhat, Nazira, Tinsukia, North Lakhimpur and Silcur. The present case is concerned with the warehouse at Silchar. In pursuance of the notice, 14 persons put in their tenders for the warehouse at Silchar. The lowest tender was of M/s. Vaibhav Marketing's the rate being Rs. 8.96 per LPL. The second lowest tender was of the petitioner, M/s. Noble Sales Agency, which quoted Rs. 9.27 per LPL. The quotation of the respondent 4, M/s. National Trading Corporation, was Rs. 11.97 per LPL and it was the 11th lowest tender. The Commis-sioner forwarded the tenders as is provided under Rule 93 of the Assam Excise Rules, 1945 (for short, 'the Rules') with observations that, although no specific tender could be recommended for acceptance by the Gov-ernment, in consideration of the past and present experience of M/s. National Trading Corporation (respondent 4), the Government may like to consider their tender for ac-ceptance at the rate Reserved Maximum Contract Rate of Rs. 10.68 per LPL. There-after, the Government offered the respondent 4, the National Trading Corporation, at Rs. 9.27 per LPL, the rate quoted by the petitioner, under letter dated 11-11-1990. Then again, in supersession of earlier offer the Government by another letter dated 18-3-91 made a revised offer to the respondent 4 at Rs. 8.96 per LFL, which was the rate quoted by M/s. Vaibhav Marketing's. The respon-dent 4 accepted the second counter-offer of the Government at Rs. 8.96 and, therefore, the contract for supply of the liquor was settled with respondent 4, M/s. National Trading Corporation, at Rs. 8.96 per LPL. Hence this application.

(3.) Mr. N. M. Lahiri, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the grant-ing the respondent 4 the contract was arbi-trary and was in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. Mr. B. K. Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent 4, and Mr. D. P. Chaliha, learned State counsel, have con-tended that there was no violation of Article 14 of the Constitution as the Government exercised its power under clause (4) of the tender.