LAWS(JHAR)-2012-8-192

VINAYKA TRADERS Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

Decided On August 16, 2012
Vinayka Traders Appellant
V/S
STATE OF JHARKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner being aggrieved by the letter no, 126 dated 19.2.2007 issued by District Programme Officer, Hazaribagh (respondent no. 3) has moved this Court in the present writ petition whereunder work order issued in his favour vide Memo No. 745 dated 15.9.2006 has been cancelled. He has further sought for quashing the memo no. 144 dated 22.2.2007 issued by the same respondent whereby the petitioner's firm has been blacklisted.

(2.) According to the petitioner, he had participated in the tender for supply of utensils in approved Angan Bari Centers under the Child Development Programme under District-Hazaribagh in July, 2006 and deposited Rs. 80,000/- as the security deposit by way of bank draft bearing numbers 348685 and 348685 (sic) dated 19.7.2006 for Rs. 40,000/- each in favour of the Zila Programme Padadhikari, Hazaribagh. By the work order dated 15.9.2006 (Annexure-1) petitioner was asked to supply utensils to the concerned project within 25 days in accordance with terms and conditions of the agreement. It is the case of the petitioner that samples of utensils were finally approved by the Purchase Committee as well as by the respondent no. 3 on 25.1.2007. Thereafter, the petitioner started supply of utensils after 30.1.2007. However, petitioner was surprised to receive letter no. 126 dated 19.2.2007 whereunder his work order dated 15.9.2006 has been cancelled on the ground that as per the condition of the said work order the utensils had not been supplied within 25 days. It is the case of the petitioner that he has never received any show cause notice as stated by the respondent vide letter no. 842 dated 4.11.2006. However, it is further submitted on the part of the petitioner that by another order contained at Annexure-5 dated 22.2.2007, petitioner has been black-listed without any show cause notice.

(3.) On the other hand, on the basis of their counter affidavit, learned counsel for the respondents-State submits that as per the agreement of the tender dated 25.7.2006 Annexure-A and also work order dated 15.9.2006 Annexure-B, the terms and condition of supply of utensils clearly stipulated that if utensils will not be supplied within 25 days from the issuance of the work order and on failure to do so, the agreement shall be treated to be cancelled and the security amount would be forfeited and the firm of the petitioner would be blacklisted. It is further stated by the counsel for the respondents that utensils were required on urgent basis for which the supply time period was of 25 days and notices were also issued as it related to Integrated Child Development Scheme (in short I.C.D.S.) for the beneficiaries of children in the age group of 0-6, pregnant, lactating mothers and the adolescent girls of BPL families. The description of the utensils were also shown in Annexure-B and petitioner failed to make the supply within 25 days. He was given show cause notice vide Memo No. 842 dated 4.11.2006 (Annexure-D) wherein it was asked to furnish a reply within three days as to why the agreement itself be not cancelled and the security amount be not forfeited as well as why not steps be taken for black-listing of the firm of the petitioner. By referring to the said show cause vide Annexure-D and dispatch extract of the dispatch register Annexure-E, the statement has been made in para-23 of their counter affidavit that the allegation of the petitioner that he did not receive letter no. 842 dated 4.11.2006 regarding show cause is false. However, it is stated on behalf of the respondents that in spite of show cause given to the petitioner, he did not file response or made the supply of the utensils within stipulated time. It is admitted case that he submitted utensils on 25.1.2007 for approval, thereafter it was approved and the supply were required to be completed within 25 days. Since, the petitioner had failed to make the supply within time, the impugned orders were issued which are annexed as Annexures-3 and 5 to the writ petition.