ASHA SHIKSHA SAMITI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed praying that the State Government be directed to initiate disciplinary action as well as criminal prosecution against the respondent No.4 one Shri Radheyshyam Meena, at the relevant time the Principal of Dr. Bheemrao Ambedkar Government Girls Residential School, Chhan, Tehsil Gangapurcity, District Sawaimadhopur, for having allegedly committed forgery of Government records more particularly an affidavit purportedly executed by the petitioner-Society in the course of execution of a contract awarded to the petitioner-Society for the supply of daily diet break-fast etc. to the students of the aforesaid school. It has been further prayed that this Court direct the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to make payment of Rs.5,66,378/- to the petitioner-Society along with interest @ 12% per annum on account of outstandings due under the contract aforesaid and that subsequent to the making of the payment, the same be recovered by the respondent Nos.1 to 3 from the respondent No.4.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that on 31.07.2006, a short term tender notice was published by the Principal of Dr. Bheemrao Ambedkar Government Girls Residential School, Chhan, Tehsil Gangapurcity, District Sawaimadhopur (hereinafter 'Girls Residential School') inviting offers for supply of daily diet break-fast etc. for the students of the school for the session 2006-07. The petitioner-Society appears to have been one of the applicants. The bid of the petitioner-Society was accepted and on 29.08.2006 the contract was awarded to the petitioner-Society for the supply of food for the students of the Girls Residential School aforesaid. As per the terms and conditions of the tender, an agreement was to be executed between the Principal of the Girls Residential School and the petitioner-Society on a non-judicial stamp of Rs.100/- pursuant to order dated 29.08.2006. For the purpose of executing the agreement, the petitioner-Society purchased a stamp paper of Rs.100/- on 29.08.2006 and met the then Principal of the Girls Residential School one Ghanshyam Sharma but was told that the typewriter for typing out the agreement thereon was not available in the school. The petitioner-Society was required to submit the blank stamp paper purchased duly signed by the Secretary of the petitioner-Society such that the conditions of the agreement as indicated in the short term tender could be typed on the stamp paper later on. It was submitted that the petitioner-Society thereupon started work effective 01.09.2006 and was orally informed that the arrangement for supply of food as per the menu should be for 327 students. Till October, 2006, Ghanshyam Sharma was the acting Principal and the execution of the contract dated 29.08.2006 was running smoothly. However, when the respondent No.4 Radheyshyam Meena was posted as Principal of the Girls Residential School, he started to harass the petitioner-Society with an ulterior motive and therefore directed the petitioner-Society to make supply of diet as per new menu effective 01.11.2006. Finding that the new menu entailed extra cost, the petitioner-Society protested, but was assured by Radheyshyam Meena that he would make arrangement for sanction of additional charges as per the new menu. The petitioner-Society states to be supplied the diet as per new menu and demanded extra charges thereof. Bills for the additional charges claimed were submitted. The bills submitted by the petitioner-Society for supply of food were however not honoured by the respondent No.4 and further illegal deduction sought to be made. Suddenly vide order dated 03.04.2007, the contract for supply of food to the students of Girls Residential School was terminated by the respondent No.4. Balance due for the supply of food already made was not paid in spite of repeated requests. To add insult to injury, the petitioner-Society's security money was also forfeited. It has been submitted that the entire action against the petitioner-Society was taken by the respondent No.4, Radheyshyam Meena malafidely on the basis of the misuse of the blank stamp paper left by the Secretary of the petitioner-Society with the erstwhile acting Principal of the Girls Residential School, Ghanshyam Sharma. No copy of the purported agreement signed by the Secretary of the petitioner-Society was supplied to the petitioner-Society in spite of repeated request.

(3.) REPLY to the petition has been filed by both the State Government and respondent No.4. It has been submitted by the State Government that the issue agitated in the present petition is fundamentally an issue based on contract and its alleged breach. It has been submitted that the protestation by the petitioner-Society with regard to no breach having been committed by it, notwithstanding it has been the State Government's consistent stand that the petitioner-Society was in breach on its obligation under the contract dated 29.08.2006 and it failed to adhere to its objection to supply the requisite quality of food to the students of the Girls Residential School. It has been submitted that the matter sought to be agitated in the writ petition is in respect of a contractual matter which this Court would loath to address in the exercise of its extraordinary equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. More so as there is no public law element to the contractual dispute between the petitioner-Society on the one hand and the respondent Nos.1 to 3 on the other and consequently, the petitioner-Society should be relegated to its remedy before the civil courts on this count. It has been submitted that the petitioner-Society was tardy and amiss in adhering its contractual obligation and in spite of repeated request from the Principal of the Girls Residential School failed to make supply of the requisite quality of food in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract for supply of food. Instead bills contrary to the terms of the contract were raised and the petitioner-Society appeared determined to use the contract to generate monies not due under the contract. The petitioner-Society being in default invited termination of contract and forfeiture of security deposit. And even though three enquiry reports were indeed submitted by the Deputy Collector, Assistant Director and Nayab Tehsildar, the reports were not conclusive and only processes in the course of decision making and on further consideration they were found to be unsustainable and consequently no action was taken thereupon.