SAVITRI SALT SUPPLIERS Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 31.5.95 passed by a learned Single Judge in Civil Rule No. 210 of 1995 dismissing the writ petition.

(2.) Facts for the purpose of disposal of this Writ Appeal may be narrated thus : The appellant/writ petitioner is a firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act. It carries on the business of sale and supply of iodised salt in various places of Assam, Bengal, Gujarat and Tripura since 1988. On 17.10.94 the 2nd respondent on behalf of and in the name of the Government of Tripura issued a notice inviting tender (for short, N.I.T) for supply of crushed iodised salt. Pursuant to the said N.I.T. the appellant submitted its tender along with other tenderers. On 10.1.9.5 the appellant-petitioner's quotation being the lowest was accepted and the 2nd respondent issued a letter inviting the appellant to supply salt for the year 1995 and it was asked to execute a deed of agreement by 30th of January, 1995. A draft agreement was also sent. But the appellant sought clarification in respect of clauses 3(a), 10 and 11 of the said agreemenll The 2nd respondent, there after, issued Annexure-7 letter dated 15.2.95 (to the writ petition) expressing his inability to consider the same. The appellant, thereafter, wrote back on 28.2.95 requesting the 2nd respondent to reconsider the same and also to incorporate a clause for early payment in respect of supply and also a clause regarding vis major. On 10.3.95 the appellant received a letter by which it was asked to execute the agreement on the same day itself. 2nd respondent, thereafter, issued letter dated 18.3.95 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) cancelling the appointment order and also ordering for forfeiture of the earnest money of Rs. 1 lakh on the ground that the appellant did not execute the agreement within the stipulated period. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent accepted the quotation of the next lower tenderer and issued supply order. But as he refused execute the work, the 2nd respondent proposed to allot the work in favour of National Consumers' Co-operative federation, New Delhi at the rate of Rs. 144/- and Rs. 116/- per quintal for Agartala and Dharmanagar respectively. The appellant submitted its representation dated 22.3.95 requesting the 2nd respondent to reconsider the matter showing its readiness to execute the work and also showing the reasons for its failure to execute the agreement. But as no action was taken, the appellant filed the writ petition for quashing the aforesaid letter dated 18.3.95. However, the writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Hence the present appeal.

(3.) We have heard Mr. N.M. Lahiri, learned Senior counsel Assisted by Mr. G. N. Sahewalla and Mrs. B. Goel, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. A. Chakraborty, learned Advocate General, Tripura, assissted by Mr. B.P. Kataky, learned Government Advocate, Tripura.