VIDYA NATH JHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE grievance of the petitioner is with respect to allocation of work order to respondent no. 5 for printing and binding of Raiyat Khata Pustika including with papers worth to the tune of Rs. 20 lacs. without any tender or inviting application by public notice. While issuing notice to the respondent no. 5 a Bench of this court vide order dated 18.10.2001 had passed an order for staying of the operation of Annexure -2. The petitioner happens to be the proprietor of Vidhyarthi Printing Press situated at Hajipur having business of printing, publishing, Binding and stationary supply since 1992. His press has also been registered under the District Industrial Centre, Hajipur having registration No. 03/30/06737 of 1992. In the year 2001 vide memo No. 17 - Abhidhari 36/2000 -366 Patna dated 27.4.2001 for providing Raiyat (Abhidhari) Khata Pustika to the Raiyats of State of Bihar in all districts and crores of rupees had been made available to the Collectors of each districts of the State. Respondent no. 3. i.e. the Collector of Vaishali at Hajipur allotted the work of printing and binding of the said Pustika to the respondent no. 5 by his order dated 6.8.2001 and accordingly work order was issued by the respondent no. 3 vide memo no. 399/Bhumi Sudhar dated 10.8.2001 for the entire work worth Rs. 20 lacs and an advance of Rs. 3 lacs has also been made to the respondent no. 5 vide his order dated 14.8.2001. According to the petitioner on earlier occasion the respondent no. 3 inviting open tender for similar nature of work which was published in Hindustan daily newspaper 5.9.2001 for printing of identity card under the old age pension scheme. In respect of the present work of printing of pustika the Collector of Bhojpur at Ara had made publication in newspaper but the respondent no. 3 without going for publication of any public notice or for asking of tenders allotted the work to the respondent no. 5 by which practically the petitioner and others situated in the same position and circumstances suffered for infringement of their right as enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) IN the counter affidavit filed by respondent nos. 3 and 4 contended that the respondent no. 5 i. e. the Commercial Art Press owned by Shri Anil Kumar is a reputed firm and, as such, work has been allotted to the respondent no. 5 after taking quotation from five proprietors of printing presses, namely, Shri Girija Shankar, Mukund Pd., Anil Kumar, Sachida Nand and Rakesh Kumar. Out of them Girja Shankar and Anil Kumar had given the same rate i.e. at the rate 4/ - per pustika Khata and as the work of Shri Anil Kumar was satisfactory and hence work was allotted to him and it has further been stated that such allotment work has been approved by the higher authorities. It has also been stated that when quotations were being called the petitioner had the full knowledge of the matter but he did not submit his quotation and now with the malicious view the present writ petition has been filed. It has also been contended that no irregularity has been committed by the respondent nos. 3 and 4 in allotment of work to the respondent no. 5. Respondent no. 5 has also filed separate counter affidavit and it has been contended that afongwith others, quotations have been given by the respondent no, 5 and his quotation being satisfactory, the work was allotted to him. It has also been stated that the Collectors of Patna and Katihar had allotted the same work at the rate of Rs. 4.25 per khata and, as such it cannot be said that irregularity has been committed in allotment of work to the respondent no. 5. It has also been stated that it has already supplied goods worth Rs. 3,20,000/ - and several goods are lying with him worth about 2 lacs and because of the stay order passed by this Court the supply could not be made but not only goods the money is also being questioned.