Sagarmal Chaudhary vs State Agriculture Dep Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 2785 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5512/2013

Sagarmal Chaudhary Son Of Shri Banshidhar Choudhary, Plot
No. 23/24, Sahakar Nagar-B Vki Area, Jaipur
                                                                      ----Petitioner
                                       Versus
1.        The State Of Rajasthan Through The Secretary To The
          Government,        Agriculture          Department,         Government
          Secretariat, Jaipur
2.        The    Director,   Rajasthan         State      Agriculture    Marketing
          Board, Pant Krishi Bhawan, Jaipur
3.        The Secretary Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Grains, Surajpole,
          Jaipur
4.        Shri Bhagwan Sahai, Ex Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi
          Samiti Grains, Jaipur Presently Posted As Secr, Krishi Upaj
          Mandi, Udaipur
5.        Smt. Alka Sharma, Chief Accounts Officer Agriculture
          Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. At present
          residing at plot No. 447, Inside of Glai of Handi
          Restaurant, Gate No. 11, Nemi Sagar Colony, Vaishali
          Nagar Jaipur.
6.        Shri G.p. Shukla, Ex-Director, Agriculture Marketing R/o
          54, Vijay Nagar (Malviya Nagar), Behind W.t.p. Mall, Near
          Vijay Marriage Garden, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur.
7.        Shri Chanan Ram, Ex-Joint Director, R/o Plot No. H-168,
          Ward No. 1, New Civil Line, Hanumangarh Junction,
          Hanumangarh Junction.
8.        Shri Mahendra SIngh Bidyasar, Deputy Legal Advisar,
          Rajashan State Agriculture Marketing Department.
                                                                   ----Respondents

Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5882/2010 Smt Suman Sethi Wife Of Shri Kamal Sethi, Aged About 54 Years, Resident Of 92, Shanti Nagar, Kings Road, Nirman Nagar, Jaipur.

                                                                      ----Petitioner
                                       Versus



                                           (2 of 7)                      [CW-5512/2013]


1.     The   State      Of     Rajasthan,         Through         The     Secretary,

Agriculture Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Director, Rajasthan State Agriculture And Marketing Board, Pant Krishi Bhawan, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur.

3. The Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti (Grains), Surajpole, Jaipur.

4. The Chief Executive Officer, Agriculture Marketing Board, Pant Krishi Bhawan, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur.

5. Sagar Mal Chaudhary Son Of Shri Banshidhar Chaudhary, Resident Of Plot No. 23/24, Shankar Nagar-B, Vki Area, Jaipur.

6. Shri G.p. Shukla, Ex-Director, Agriculture Marketing R/o 54, Vijay Nagar (Malviya Nagar), Behind W.t.p. Mall, Near Vijay Marriage Garden, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur.

7. Smt. Alka Sharma, Chief Accounts Officer, Agriculture Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Resident Of 447, Nemi Sagar, Colony, Queens Road, Jaipur.

8. Shri Chanan Ram, Ex-Joint Director, R/o Plot No. H-168, Ward No. 1, New Civil Line, Hanumangarh Junction, Hanumangarh.

9. Shri Nahar Singh, Asst. Engineer, Rajasthan Rajya Krishi Upaj Board, Jaipur - Ii, Jaipur, Resident Of C-98, Vaishali Nagar, Behind Inox Multiplex, Jaipur, (Deleted The Name Of Respondent No. 9 Vide Order Dated 15/1/2022 Passed By Honble High Court.)

10. Shri Bhagwan Sahai Jatav, Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Secretary (Anaj), Jaipur, Presently Posted As Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi, Udaipur.

                                                                  ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)          :    Mr. Gaurav Jain, Adv.
                                Mr. Amit Jindal, Adv.
For Respondent(s)          :    Ms. Sumati Bishnoi, Adv. with
                                Mr. Rajesh Kumar Saini, Adv.
                                Mr. Ajay Pratap, DGC


             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
                          Judgment / Order

Reserved On 23/02/2022
Pronounced On 01/04/2022



                                           (3 of 7)                     [CW-5512/2013]

1. Being aggrieved by one advertisement dated 04/06/2009

issued for inviting tender for establishing computerized weighing

machine in in Guana Anaj Mandi Area, Jaipur published in

newspaper on 05/06/2009 wherein tenders were opened on

25/06/2009 and thereby 17 tenders were received from different

applicants out of which 5 were considered being the highest

bidders, two of the applicants namely; Sagarmal Chaudhary and

Smt. Suman Sethi (petitioners herein) have filed the present writ

petitions which are under consideration before this Court and as

interrelated and interconnected issues are involved, both these

writ petitioners are being decided by this common order.

2. Facts of the case as per the petitioners are that on

05/06/2009 tenders were issued and on 25/06/2009, the same

were opened. Since the highest bidders no.1 and 2 did not submit

their project report as required in the terms and conditions, on

24/08/2009, a resolution was passed and sanction was accorded

to Shri Computerized Dharamkanta for establishing weighing

machine.

3. The petitioner Sagar Mal Chaudhary earlier filed a Writ

Petition No.7660/2009 and the petitioner Smt. Suman Sethi also

filed a Writ Petition No.15489/2009 challenging the said action of

the respondents. On 08/12/2009, this Court decided the Writ

petition No. 7660/2009 filed by Mr. Sagar Mal Chaudhary setting

aside the contract awarded in favour of respondent no.4 and

directing the respondents to proceed in the matter after

considering the comparative assessment and to allot the tender to

fully eligible person as per merit. On 17/12/2009, in the light of

the said order dated 08/12/2009, the petitioner Smt. Suman Sethi

(4 of 7) [CW-5512/2013]

withdrew the Writ Petition No.15489/2009 as the lis did not

survive.

4. In pursuance of the order dated 08/12/2009, a meeting was

convened by the respondents on 08/01/2010 for allotment

wherein it was found that first two bidders did not comply with the

terms and conditions and finally Smt. Suman Sethi (petitioner

herein) was found to be the higher bidder and the rate was agreed

for Rs.45001/- per month and a letter in this regard was issued to

the Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Grains, Jaipur on

13/01/2010. In spite of above, the work order was not issued and

on the contrary, the respondent no.3 issued a cancellation order

on 26/02/2010. Hence, present writ petition no.5882/2010 was

filed for setting aside the cancellation order dated 26/02/2010 and

another set of the writ petition was filed by Mr. Sagarmal

Chaudhary bearing SB Civil Writ Petition No.5512/2013 for not

only setting aside the allotment made to Smt. Suman Sethi but

also for setting aside the award/proceedings letter dated

24/02/2010.

5. Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondents relied upon

conditions no.27 and 33 of the contract for installation of

Computerized Weighing Machine which provide as under:-

^^27- vuqcU/k dh fdlh 'krZ dk mYya?ku djus ij eaMh lfefr dks vuqcU/k fujLr djus dk iw.kZ vf/kdkj gksxkA 33- yht vuqcU/k funs'kd dh Lohd`fr i'pkr~ fu"ikfnr fd;k tkosxkA**

6. Learned counsel for the respondents also relied upon the

order dated 08/12/2009 passed by this Court in earlier Writ

(5 of 7) [CW-5512/2013]

Petition No.7760/2009 filed by the petitioner Mr. Sagar Mal

Chaudhary whereby it was directed as under:-

"In this view of the matter, this writ petition is allowed. The contract awarded in favour of respondent no. 4 is hereby set aside and respondents herein are directed to proceed in the matter and after considering the comparative assessment allotment may be made to the person who was fully eligible on that date and while doing so, if the petitioner cornes in merit and is found to be eligible, then, contract may be awarded to him."

7. Learned counsel for the respondents thus submitted that in

the light of the terms and conditions of the contract and in

compliance of the order of this Court dated 08/12/2009, referred

to supra, the matter was examined by the State Government, a

Committee was constituted and the said Committee found that

there were sufficient irregularities in the entire process of inviting

tenders, opening and preparing the list of tenders and it was also

found and analyzed by the Committee that the process of the

tender was not as per the provisions of GF&AR Rules and

therefore, the entire process and NIT was cancelled on account of

the irregularities in terms of the conditions specified in the NIT

and hence, the writ petitions filed by both the petitioners do not

stand on their legs.

8. After considering records of the writ petitions, hearing

arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the sides, this

Court is of the following view:-

(a) It is an admitted fact that one NIT was issued qua

establishing computerized weighing machine way back on

(6 of 7) [CW-5512/2013]

05/06/2009. As per the terms and conditions of the contract,

submissions of project report, signing each and every document

and observing the same in a fair and transparent manner by the

respondents was the mandatory requirement. In the first round of

litigation, against the successful bidder, both the petitioners earlier

filed writ petitions and this Court vide order dated 08/12/2009

allowed the writ petition by directing the respondents to proceed

in the matter and after considering the comparative assessment

allotment may be made to the person who was fully eligible on

that date and while doing so, if the petitioner comes in merit and

is found to be eligible, then, contract may be awarded to him. In

pursuance to the same, tender proceedings were initiated and the

petitioner in SBCWP-5882/2010 (Smt. Suman Sethi) was held to

be successful bidder but when the matter was examined by the

State Government and a Committee was constituted, which after

considering the entire matter, found various deficiencies and

irregularities in inviting the tenders and also found that the

process was violative of Rule 52 of the GF&AR Rules and

therefore, it was finally decided to cancel the entire process and

issue fresh NIT for establishing computerized weighing machine

and accordingly vide order impugned dated 26/02/2010, the

allotment was cancelled.

(b) It is true that the respondents in the instant case, in the light

of GF&AR Rules, orders and directions of the Court dated

08/12/2009 in Writ Petition No.7660/2009, after considering the

original records, had taken a considered decision for cancelling the

NIT in question and for issuing the same afresh. In the opinion of

this Court, as per the terms and conditions of the contract,

reproduced above, before allotment of NIT/tender, the

(7 of 7) [CW-5512/2013]

respondents are at ease in terms of conditions no. 27 and 33 not

to accept the offer made by the petitioner and even not to accept

the same without giving show cause notice. In the case in hand,

the respondents have justified their action by specifying that as in

some of the cases, the project report was not there, the

documents were not signed by the successful bidders, on perusal

of the original record, it was analyzed that the provisions of

GF&AR Rules are not complied with and there is no fair and

transparent action on the part of the respondent-Mandi Samiti and

therefore, in this background, vide order dated 26/02/2010, the

NIT was cancelled and the order dated 13/02/2010 was also

cancelled and directions were given for issuance of fresh NIT.

(c) In the light of above and considering the fact that multiplicity

of litigation is there as well as the fact that there is lack of

transparency in the present matter and that the respondents are

having enough powers as per terms and conditions to cancel the

Notice Inviting Tender for justified reasons, this Court is of the

opinion that no interference is called for by this Court in the

present matter and the order dated 26/02/2010 in the facts and

circumstances of the case appears to be justified.

(d) From the angle of public interest also, as the matter pertains

to the year 2009 and the lis in question is still continuing in the

year 2022, it will be appropriate that the respondents issue NIT

afresh at the earliest in public interest in a fair and transparent

manner.

9. Consequently, both these writ petitions are dismissed. All

pending applications stand disposed of in above terms.

(SAMEER JAIN),J

Raghu/

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)