BADAN LAHKAR Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioners have prayed for issuance of appropriate writ or direction.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that they carry on business of printing. Government of Assam issued notice inviting tenders for printing of ballot papers for 1992 Panchayat election. Pursuant to the said notice inviting tenders, petitioners along with others submitted their tenders quoting different prices. Thereafter, The Government decided to distribute the printing jobs to various presses at a negotiated price of 0.96 paise per ballot paper. As per the work order the printing work had to be completed within a period of 10 days. The petitioners undertook the job of printing ballot papers and completed the same within the stipulated period. As the time was short, petitioners hurriedly completed the work and then submitted their bills. Some amounts of the bill were also paid. Thereafter, the respondents stopped payment and ultimately refused to jay. A.W.T. message was sent whereby the rate was reduced to 0.50 paise! per ballot paper at which rate some printers were agreeable to undertake the job and accordingly, the balance amounts of the bills were not paid. Situated thus petitioners submitted representations. Thereafter the Government revised the rate and fixed at 0.60 paise per ballot paper and was inclined to pay bills at that rate. Being aggrieved the petitioner No. 1 approached this Court by filing a writ petition (Civil Rule No. 1371/ 93) and this Court disposed of the petition with an observation that the petitioner might prefer a representation before the respondent No.1 within a period of 15 days from the date of the order and the respondent No. 1 was directed to dispose of the said representation after hearing the petitioner and other similarly aggrieved persons expeditiously. Pursuant to the said order the respondent disposed of the matter and refused to change the rate fixed earlier, i.e. 0.60 paise per ballot paper. Hence the present petition.

(3.) I have heard Mr. A.K. Phookan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. D.P. Chaliha, learned Senior Government Advocate, Assam.