MUKESH KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRAYER in this writ application is for a direction to the respondents to enquire into and consider the case of the petitioner on the basis of the tender submitted by him for the supply of food -grains to the Central/Divisional Sub -Jail, Bokaro.

(2.) THE petitioner's case is that in response to an invitation for tender published by the respondent authorities, the petitioner had submitted his tender for the supply of food -grains to the jail. After receipt of the tenders from the petitioner as also from several other applicants, the respondents had refused to open the petitioner's tender and after assessing the tenders of others, allotted the work to another person. On the demand of the petitioner, the respondents issued a letter (Annexure -5) stating the reasons for refusal to accept and open his tender.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent State is present. Though no counter -affidavit has been filed but learned Counsel would refer to the letter (Annexure -5) containing the objections taken by the jail authorities. Learned Counsel submits that admittedly the petitioner's father is an employee of the jail and embargo under Rule 159 of the Jail Manual categorically prohibits the engaging of any person in any contract work where any relative of such person is an employee of the Jail. Learned Counsel submits further that the documents furnished by the petitioner were enquired into and it was found that the petitioner has been living as a member of the joint family in the same house with his father and it Is apparent from this fact that the father being a jail employee, has an indirect interest in the business venture of the son namely the petitioner and such being the fact the petitioner cannot be allowed to enter into any contract for the supply of articles in the jail.