CHAHAL DISTRIBUTORS Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this writ petition the petitioner is seeking for a writ of Certiorari quashing Order No. JDP/LPP/S -13/1029 -31 Dated 6th August 1987 whereby respondent No.3 has placed the supply order to respondent No.6, as also order No. ASH/Plan -88/Misc. Dated 12th September, 1997 and;

(2.) FURTHER a writ of Certiorari seeking quashment of Order No. JDP/LPP/S -30/1489 -91 dated 23rd September, 1997 and; a writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to accept the poultry feed supply from the petitioner only as per agreement executed between the petitioner and respondents 4 and 5; further a writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to make the payment to the petitioner of amount for which the poultry supply has been made to the respondents; and any other relief.

(3.) THE facts in brief which have given rise to the present petition are that the petitioner in pursuance to the notification inviting tenders for supply of poultry feed for the financial year 1997 -98, as per Annexure "B", submitted his tender thereby quoting his rates, and the tender of the petitioner was accepted and a communication was made to him vide letter dated 25th April, 1997, forming Annexure "C" to the petition. That in pursuance of the acceptance offender, the petitioner tendered into an agreement for the supply of the poultry feed and after executing the contract he started making supply as per communication sent to him by respondent No.5. But, despite making of the supply, the payment was not made to the petitioner because respondents No.3 and 4 wanted to give contract to somebody else. It is further averred that the petitioner continued in making the supply to the respondents under the promise that payment will be made to him shortly, as respondents used to write to the petitioner of making of the payment. It is further averred that in the month of July, 97 when there was good crop of wheat, that the petitioner slashed his rate from Rs. 725/ - to Rs. 698/ -, though he was not supposed to do so as per the agreement. This shows that the petitioner was bonafide in making the supply at a minimum price and slashed his rates because of the change in the market of the price of maize in the month of July, 97. It is further averred that when the petitioner started making quick supply, at one time respondent No.7 wrote respondent No.5 and respondent No. 5 in turn directed the petitioner to go slow with regard to the supply. This shows the bonafide of the petitioner that he was accordingly making the supply, but it was at the behest of the respondents themselves that the petitioner was asked to go slow. It is further projected by the petitioner that though he had made 50% of the poultry for the current quarter, but no payment was made to the petitioner and payment to the tune of Rs. 21.65lacs was still pending which is a huge amount. It is also averred by the petitioner that the supply of poultry feed was being made by him in response to the tender and the agreement which was executed by him with the Managing Director, J&K State Agro Industries Development Corporation, at whose behest the poultry feed was being supplied to the Director Animal Husbandry and to Joint Director Poultry/LPP Belicharana.