STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. CHIRAG ENTERPRISES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance against the order of the learned single Judge dated Feb. 12, 1981, whereby the petitioner-respondent's writ petition was allowed and the appellants were directed to immediately convene a meeting of the Central Stores Purchase Committee (hereinafter referred to as "the CSPC") and decide the matter afresh on the basis of the tenders received for the year 1980-81 within a period of three weeks from the date of the order,

(2.) The facts of the case lie within a narrow compass. They may be recalled as hereunder : The Deputy Secretary (Administration) and the Stores Purchase Officer (Administration), Secretariat, Jaipur, issued a tender notice No. 2/80 on behalf of the CSPO of the Government of Rajasthan inviting tenders for the supply inter alia of hose pipes (PVC and Rubber). The said tender notice was published in the Rajasthan Patrika. By this tender a rate contract for purchase of PVC hose pipes was to be entered between the supplier on the one part and the Stores Purchase Officer, Finance Department, Government of Rajasthan, on the other to supply to the Government Departments, Local Authorities and other Organisations. The petitioner-respondents and others submitted their tenders in the prescribed tender form within time. The tenders were opened on July 21, 1980. The tenders were processed and were sent for technical opinion. The Additional Chief Engineer (Mech.)/Public Health Engineering Department, Rajasthan, Shri. K.L. Goel, after considering the various tenders, samples and test certificates, submitted his technical report. He opined as under :-

(3.) The petitioner's case is that out of the tenders received, the tender submitted by the petitioner was the lowest for the sizes of 40 MM and 75 MM. The petitioner having found its tender to be the lowest, it proceeded to make preparations for the supply of the material to the extent indicated in the pro forma tender form, as in the event of the failure to make the supply, the petitioner would have suffered penalty as per condition No. 18 of the conditions of the contract. The petitioners-firm proceeded to make stocks of the material and managed to keep stores worth over rupees one lac to meet the requirements of the purchase officers likely to purchase PVC hose pipes during the period ending March 31, 1981. Mr. Jitendra Maheshwari, partner of the petitioners-firm having learnt that purchases are being made directly from the different parties by the purchasing officers contacted Shri R.L. Jain, Stores Purchase Officer on Oct. 21, 1980, on phone and it was informed that he does not propose to enter into a rate contract and has directed the purchasing officers to directly effect purchases. The petitioner challenged the action of the appellants on the grounds stated in para 11 of the writ petition, to which we shall advert, while dealing with the contentions advanced before us, and prayed that the appellants be directed to enter into a rate contract with the petitioner and not to effect purchases of PVC hose pipes otherwise than by way of rate contract, and the appellants may be further forbidden from going back after inviting tenders for rate contract