CHANDIGARH POULTRY CENTRE Vs. U O I

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Counter has not been filed. Mr. S.S. Nanda, learned Sr. CGSC submitted that the objections already filed in detail be treated as counter Prayer allowed.

(2.) With the consent of learned counsel appearing for respective parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing.

(3.) Petitioner was allotted contract for the supply of frozen meat for the year 2002-03 on the strength of a contract hearing No. CD-99 dated 18-4-2000. In pursuance of the contract, the petitioner was required to supply 11 lacs kg of frozen meat during the contract period. The petitioner Accordingly started the supply of frozen meatAas per the approved items. The entire necessary arrangements and requisite infrastructure were required to be made by the petitioner contractor in performance of the contractual obligations. The petitioner contractor strictly followed the procedure as per the terms and conditions of the agreement. It is further submitted that after procuring the live stock, it is made available to the Supply Officer for antic mortem at the SC Butchery by the Veterinary Doctors of the respondents. Thereafter, such anti-mortem live stock is duly branded and segregated from the remaining live stock which is kept in the pipeline for further supply. The former is sent for slaughter to the slaughter house and the same is again carried out in presence of the Veterinary Doctors and the Supply Officers. After slaughtering, the meat is kept in the room provided for the purpose under the custody of officers of respondents and the same is duly sealed by the said officers. It is further stated that again the team of same officers break open the seal next day and carry out the post-mortem examination of Carcasses and each Carcass is stamped by the Veterinary Doctor and his attendants after it is found fit for human consumption by the doctor. According to the petitioner, the Carcasses, duly stamped by the Veterinary Doctor, are loaded in a insulated van in presence of the officers and after it is duly locked, is transported from the Butchery Reezing Plant under the escort of the officers of the respondents. No other person or representative of the petitioner-contractor sits in the van except the driver of the vehicle. It is also stated that after the van reaches the Cold Storage, the Incharge of the butchery. JCO and NCO hands over the Carcasses 2004 J. &K./10(2)(8pp) XII G 29 to JCO Incharge of the plant against proper receipt in respect of counted number of Carcasses. The same are, thereafter, put in the chilling chamber for an overnight for removal of latent heat and the chilling room is sealed by the JCO Incharge of the plant. Again the chilled Carcasses are re-inspected by the Veterinary Doctors and thereafter the meat is packed and weighted in presence of JCO Incharge of the Chilling Chamber and Veterinary Doctors of the respondents. There after the packed meat is kept in the blast freezing chamber for frozen of meat at a temperature of minus 40 degree centigrade and the chamber is locked and sealed by the staff of 603 ASC Bn. and the keys remain with them. The petitioner further submitted that the entire process of cutting, packing and transportation is carried out under the supervision of respondents right from the time the live stocks are handed over to them by the petitioner and the entire domain, practical or physical, thereafter remains with the respondents to the exclusion of the petitioner or his agents till the dispatch of such meat to the air field for mounting base. The petitioner further submitted that at no point of time the supply remains abandoned or within the physical control of petitioner during this time. The petitioner, is, however, aggrieved of communication dated 11-1-2003 by which he was informed about the mixing of 15 kgs inedible offal in 500 kgs frozen meat dispatched from 603 ASC Bn. to FSD Lch on 9-5-2002. The petitioner clarified that it was impracticable and unimaginable to find a portion of the meat as inedible in view of the explained procedure carried out in presence of their officers, but was without any positive respondents without affording an opportunity to the petitioner to explain his conduct, removed the firm of petitioner from the approved list of ASC Contractors vide Order No. 30704/A-09/ST5 dated 17-4-2003, which the petitioner seeks to quash, by issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari in invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 103 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir. The trouble, however, according to the petitioner started on account of inter se differences of two officers of the armed forces at the dispatch and receiving end of the supplies.