HITESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by reduction in rates of commodities with retrospective effect communicated to the petitioner vide Memo dated 30.10.2012 and 31.10.2012, the present writ petition has been filed. Pursuant to Notice Inviting Tender for supply of foodgrains, green vegetables, potatoes etc. in Dhanbad Jail for the period between 1.7.2012 to 30.9.2012, the petitioner submitted his bid and his bid was found the lowest. Accordingly, for supply of the aforesaid food articles to the Dhanbad Jail for the 3rd quarter of the year i.e. from 1.7.2012 to 30.9.2012, the petitioner was awarded work order on the basis of the rate fixed by the Purchase Committee. For supplying the aforesaid food articles for the last quarter of 2012 also, work order was given to the petitioner. Similarly, for supply of foodgrains, fresh vegetables, potatoes etc. for the Giridih Jail, the petitioner was awarded work orders for the period between 1.7.2012 to 30.9.2012 and for the period between 1.10.2012 to 31.12.2012 also. The petitioner executed the work orders without any complain however, subsequently the Jail Superintendent of Dhanbad Jail and Giridih Jail communicated to the petitioner the rate of foodgrains approved by the I.G. (Prison), Jharkhand whereunder, the rates for few items have been approved at reduced rates. Aggrieved, the petitioner submitted representation and under protest, he received the payment at reduced rates.

(2.) Mr. Sudarshan Shrivastava, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Clause 5 in Notice Inviting Tender which provides that the rates fixed by the Purchase Committee can be modified by the I.G. (Prison) is arbitrary. The respondents after the work order was successfully executed, cannot revise/modify the rate of foodgrains, vegetables etc. with retrospective effect, to the detriment to the petitioner. It is further submitted that in any case power under Clause 5 must be exercised by the IG (Prison) within a reasonable time and in no case, the rates approved by the Purchase Committee can be reduced by I.G. (Prison) after the supplies have been made.

(3.) The learned counsel for the respondents submits that after the petitioner accepted the work order, he cannot challenge the conditions of contract. Under Clause 5 the bidders were duly informed that the rates approved by the Purchase Committee are subject to approval of I.G. (Prison) who can modify/revise the rates recommended by the Purchase Committee. Under Clause 7 only those bidders were invited to submit their bids who agreed to accept the conditions in Notice Inviting Tender and therefore, the petitioner cannot raise a grievance with respect to revision of rates of few food articles by I.G. (Prison).