T M ENTERPRISE Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State respondents having appointed respondent No. 4 as pds whole sale Nominee-cum-Miller-cum-carriage contractor in respect of PDS wheat for Zone IV in East Siang District of the State of Arunachal Pradesh and thereby rejecting the offer of the petitioner vide order dated 7-3-2008, the appellant unsuccessfully challenged the said order in W. P. (C) No. 157 (AP)/08 which is the subject-matter of the present appeal.

(2.) WE have heard Mr. R. P. Sarma, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the appellant/writ petitioner, Mr. N. Dutta, learned advocate General, Arunachal Pradesh, assisted by Mr. B. Banerjee, learned Govt. Counsel, Arunachal Pradesh and Mr. M. G. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent.

(3.) TO put in short the relevant facts for the disposal of the appeal may be stated as follows : the State of Arunachal Pradesh issued a nit on 7-12-2008 inviting application for appointment as PDS Wholesale nominee-cum-Miller-cum-Carriage Contractor for pds wheat in respect of Zone IV comprising of East Siang, Upper Siang, West Siang and upper Subansiri Districts, Arunachal pradesh. In pursuance to the aforesaid NIT, the appellant/petitioner submitted his offer and participated in the tender process. The petitioner's firm was, found to be the lowest and genuine bidder and was recommended for said appointment by the Board so constituted for selection of the tenders and accordingly, the appellant/petitioner was recommended for such appointment and forwarded the same to the State Government for further necessary action therein. However, the Govt. authority namely, Secretary to the Food and Civil Supplies Department, arunachal Pradesh instead of appointing the appellant/ petitioner's firm as per the recommendation of the Board, passed the impugned order dated 7-3-2008 appointing the respondent no. 4 as PDS Wholesale Nominee-cum-Miller-cum-Carriage Contractor for PDS wheat for Zone IV. Aggrieved by the said action of the respondents, the petitioner challenged the same by filing writ petition.