(1.) Heard Mr. B. K. Sharma, learned senior Counsel for the writ petitioner in WP (C) No. 3213 of 2003. Also heard Mrs. M. Hazarika, learned counsel for Respondent No. 6A, Mr. D. Chaudhury, learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 and Mr. P. Sarma, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 8. Mr. S. Kataky, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner in WP (C) No. 3075/2003 as well as Mrs. M. Hazarika, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 4 in the said writ petition have been duly heard. Mr. R. K. Bora, learned Government Advocate, Assam appearing for the State respondents in both the cases has been heard. The records in original as produced have been duly perused.
(2.) A tender notice was published in various newspapers of the State inviting bids for supply of various items to the District Jail at Guwahati. The items were sought to be grouped into different categories marked as Groups A, B, and so on on the basis of the homogeneity of the articles required to be supplied. The present writ petitions seek to challenge the grant of contracts in favour of the concerned Respondents insofar as the supply of items covered by Groups A,C,D, F and G are concerned. It may be noticed that the contract in Group A was awarded to the Respondent No. 6A in W.P. (C) 3123/2003, who is also the Respondent No. 4 in W.P. (C) No. 3075/03. The contract insofar as Group C items is concerned, has been awarded to the Respondent No. 7 in WP (C) 3213/2003 whereas the contract insofar as items in Group D is concerned, that has been awarded in favour of Respondent 6. Insofar as other Groups F and G are concerned, the contracts have been granted in favour of the Respondent 8.
(3.) A perusal of the elaborate pleadings advanced on behalf of the writ petitioner and the oral contentions made by the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner would go to show that the primary thrust of the challenge with regard to the grant of the aforesaid contracts is that the lower offers made by the writ petitioners in both the cases have been ignored and the contracts have been granted to the respective respondents at a higher rate. Having identified the major plank of the arguments advanced in support of the challenge made, it would be hardly necessary for this Court to go into a detailed recital of the rates quoted by the respective parties. The challenge having been identified, we may now consider the merits of the same.