M/S Abhaya Kalpa Technology Pvt. ... vs Tripura Rural Livelihood Mission ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 139 Tri

                               Page 1


                  HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                        AGARTALA
                        W.A. 55 of 2022
1. M/s Abhaya Kalpa Technology Pvt. Ltd.
A Company registered under the Companies Registration Act,
1956, represented by its Managing Director, R/at 69,
Thrinethra, 10th Main, Binny Layout, 2nd Stage, Vijayanagar,
Bangaluru-560040, Karnataka State,
2. NG Lakshmisha
S/o Lt. NG Gujjegowda, CEO & Managing Director, M/s Abhaya
Kalpa Technology Pvt. Ltd. 69, Thrinethra, 10 th Main, Binny
Layout, 2nd Stage, Vijayanagar, Bangaluru-560040, Karnataka
State
                                                  ... APPELLANTS
                                  (Petitioners in the writ petition)
          Versus
1. Tripura Rural livelihood mission (TRLM), represented
by its Chief Executive Officer, State Mission Management Unit
(SMMU), near Bholagiri Ashram, Opp. to EPFO Office, Agartala,
P.S. NCC, P.O. Kunjaban, PIN- 799006, District- West Tripura
2. The State of Tripura
notice to be served upon the Secretary to the Govt. of Tripura,
Rural Development Department, New Secretariat Complex,
Gurkhabasti, P.O. Kunjaban-799007, P.S. NCC, Agartala,
District- West Tripura
3. Union of India
notice to be served upon the Secretary to the Govt. of India,
Ministry of Rural Development, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi-
110001
4. NABARD Consultancy Service (NABCONS), A company
registered under the Companies Registration Act, 1956,
represented by its Managing Director, 24 Rajendra Place, 7 th
Floor, NABARD Building, New Delhi-110125
                                                       ... RESPONDENTS

(Respondents in the writ petition) For Appellant(s) : Mr. SK Deb, Sr. Advocate Mr. AL Saha, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, GA Mr. S. Lodh, Advocate Mr. B. Majumder, CGC Mr. S. Saha, Advocate Date of hearing & delivery of judgment : 07.02.2023 Whether fit for reporting : Yes / No Page 2

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH Judgment & Order (Oral) 07/02/2023 (T. Amarnath Goud, ACJ)

Heard Mr. SK Deb, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. AL

Saha, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. D.

Bhattacharjee, learned GA assisted by Mr. S. Saha, learned

counsel appearing for the respondent-State and Mr. S. Lodh,

learned counsel appearing for respondent-NABARD Consultancy

Service and Mr. B. Majumder, learned CGC appearing for

respondent-Union of India.

2. This appeal has been filed by the appellants assailing the

judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated

12.01.2022 passed in WP(C) no.657 of 2021 dismissing the writ

petition filed by the petitioners, the appellants herein.

3. Briefly stated, the petitioner had participated in selection

process of DDU-GKY project in the State of Tripura. Screening of

qualitative appraisal was carried out by respondent no. 4,

NABCONS and after clearance the name of the petitioner was

recommended to respondent no. 1, TRLM, for referring the name

of the petitioner to the PAC/EC, Tripura. The respondent no. 1

herein conducted a pre-PAC meeting on 12.01.2021 and

thereafter records of 15 agencies were forwarded for PAC

meeting. Thereafter, in the meeting held on 26.02.2021 by the Page 3

PAC under the Chairmanship of Chief Secretary, Government of

Tripura, the project of the petitioner was not accepted and

according to the petitioner such decision was taken without

considering the substantive records. It is the case of the

petitioner that for taking such decision it was observed that the

petitioners' financial status was not at the satisfactory level. It is

the further case of the petitioners that the respondent no. 4

without following the guidelines wrongly awarded marks to them.

Thereafter, the petitioners on 13.03.2021 made a representation

for consideration of their proposal and the same was again

discarded without assigning any reason thereof.

4. Mr. Deb, learned senior counsel appearing for the

petitioners has submitted that after qualitative appraisal the

respondent no. 4 had recommended the petitioner which was

also approved in the pre-PAC meeting, but surprisingly and most

arbitrarily the PAC in its meeting dated 26.02.2021 did not

consider the eligibility of the petitioners. Mr. Deb, learned senior

counsel referring to the PAC minutes of DDU-GKY, Tripura has

pointed out that in the summary of the project the PAC did not

consider the petitioner since as per QA report, the financial

strength of score of the petitioner is 2 out of 10. He has further

contended that for the same inputs the petitioners had been

qualified in Arunachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala but, for the Page 4

same inputs the appraisal report of the petitioner was held to be

not acceptable. Learned senior counsel has further contended

that the petitioners made representation for informing the

petitioner regarding the reasons for not being qualified and in

turn respondent no. 1 by its reply dated 27.07.2021 rejected the

proposal of the petitioner without applying its mind and without

any reason.

5. Learned GA has fairly submitted that scoring has been

carried out exclusively by respondent no. 4 and respondents no.

1 and 2 are not in the way. Mr. Lodh, learned counsel appearing

for the respondent No.4 submitted that by following the

guidelines they have awarded the marks to the petitioners.

6. We have perused the records and also the judgment of the

learned single Judge.

7. From the record, it is found that respondent no. 4 has

chosen not to file any counter affidavit but, in absence of any

counter affidavit, respondent no. 4 cannot substantiate their

original order. It is the respondents no. 1 and 2 who are to

explain in details the rejection of the proposal of the petitioners

after obtaining proper report from the respondent no. 4 since

respondent no. 4 has awarded the marks.

8. Considering all aspects of the matter, the impugned order

dated 12.01.2022 passed by the learned single Judge is hereby Page 5

set-aside. The matter is remanded back to the respondents no. 1

and 2 where they shall re-examine the case of the petitioners

and pass a speaking order with regard to the eligibility and non-

eligibility of the petitioners. The entire exercise shall be

completed within 2 (two) months from the date of passing of this

order.

9. Accordingly, the writ appeal stands disposed of. Interim

application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

              JUDGE                          CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING)




Saikat