GOPAL PRASAD MOHANTY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case is taken up through video conferencing.

(2.) The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to release the dues amounting to Rs.3,25,825.00 and the security deposit of Rs.10,000.00 to the petitioners in respect of supply of "Bee Keeping Sets" to the beneficiaries as per the direction of the respondents.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondents had published a tender invitation notice in a local daily newspaper, namely, Prabhat Khabar, on 29/1/2000, offering supply of "Bee Keeping Sets" for distribution to the selected beneficiaries i.e. poor tribal families of all blocks of Bokaro district with a view to enhance their income under productive schemes of Mineral Area Development Authority (in short 'MADA')/non-MADA. The petitioners' establishment, namely, Urmila Agro Farm was found the lowest bidder and the offer relating to supply of Bee Keeping Set @ Rs.14,900.00 including the training for bee keeping was to made to it. The said materials were supplied by the petitioners' establishment to the concerned beneficiaries selected by the district authorities in the respective blocks and also imparted bee keeping training to them. The ex. representative of Urmila Agro Farm, namely, Vijay Kumar Mittal, being an authorized signatory, submitted bill dtd. 11/4/2000 for supply of 32 Bee Keeping Sets to the Deputy Development Commissioner, Bokaro- respondent no.3 amounting to Rs.4,76,800.00 and the said amount was paid in full. Thereafter, the petitioners' establishment supplied 24 Bee Keeping Sets (13 sets in Kasmar block and 11 sets in Jaridih Block) for which a bill of Rs.3,57,600.00 dtd. 24/5/2000 (later on shown in the bills as Rs.3,57,000.00) was raised by the said ex. representative of Urmila Agro Farm. The petitioners' establishment further supplied 31 Bee Keeping Sets for which a bill of Rs.4,61,900.00 dtd. 7/8/2000 was raised. The ex. representative of the petitioners' establishment repeatedly represented the respondent no.2 and also sent legal notice to him to release the payment of the outstanding bills, however, instead of making full payment, an ad-hoc payment was released to the tune of Rs.4,93,075.00, which was received under protest and a sum of Rs.3,25,825.00 as well as security deposit of Rs.10,000.00 is still due to be paid. It is further submitted that after due deliberation, the bid price was fixed by the Purchase Committee of the respondents and the price offered by Urmila Agro Farm was not only the lowest but the same was also competitive when compared with the price paid for such sets in other districts. The required training for operation and maintenance of such sets was also imparted by it to the beneficiaries, who mostly belonged to tribal community. It is further submitted that the respondents unilaterally reduced the bid price by misusing their power and such arbitrary action on their part is violative of the principle of natural justice, as no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioners before reducing the bid price. It is further submitted that the respondents were making payment of the bill amount in piecemeal manner and when the last instalment was being paid, the petitioners were threatened that no further amount would be paid and as such they received the last payment under protest. It is wrong to say that the petitioners did not raise objection at the time of payment. It is also submitted that Bee Keeping Sets supplied by the petitioners were received without any objection as to the quality of the material and, therefore, the respondents cannot raise any such objection after completion of the work successfully. The price quoted by the petitioners was accepted by the District Purchase Committee and as such the same cannot be changed by any other committee that too when the contract/work is already completed. Even in fixation of the revised price, the respondents did not take into account several important and relevant factors i.e. distribution cost at different blocks situated in scattered locations, interest on capital, interest on overdue bills, entrepreneur's remuneration, reasonable profit, training cost, cost of supplying live bees including queen bee, hidden cost and overheads. It is further submitted that the petitioners never agreed to the revised rate, as would be evident from the several representations and legal notices sent to the respondents.