Back
2009 Supreme(J&K) 98
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT SRINAGAR
Muzaffar Hussain Attar, J.
B-2 Computers, Kargil - Appellant
Versus
State & Ors. - Respondent
OWP No. 293/2007
Decided On : 12 March, 2009
Advocate For Appellant: Mufti Mehraj-ud-din
Advocate For Respondent: Z.A. Qureshi
Advocate For Respondent: Hashim Hussain
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for government actions to adhere to principles of fairness, reasonableness, and non-discrimination, as well as the need for transparency in awarding public contracts.
Headnote:
TENDER - Government Contracts - [Constitution of India, Article 226; Constitution of J&K, Section 103] - The court discussed the tender notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner/Chief Executive Officer and the subsequent actions of the respondents in awarding supply orders without following the tender process. The court highlighted the principles of fairness, reasonableness, and non-discrimination in government actions, as established in various Supreme Court cases, and emphasized the need for transparency in awarding public contracts. The court found the actions of the respondents to be arbitrary and in violation of constitutional rights, leading to directions for initiating departmental and criminal actions against the responsible authorities and for adherence to settled norms in awarding contracts in the future.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an engineering graduate, launched a business dealing with computers and its accessories. He responded to a tender notice for supply of computer sets but claimed that no decision was taken by the Deputy Commissioner/Chief Executive Officer. The petitioner alleged that supply orders were issued in favor of another party without following the tender process, infringing on his constitutional rights.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the actions of the respondents in awarding supply orders without following the tender process were arbitrary and violated the principles of fairness, reasonableness, and non-discrimination as established in various Supreme Court cases. The court directed the initiation of departmental and criminal actions against the responsible authorities and emphasized the need for adherence to settled norms in awarding contracts in the future.
Issues: Violation of constitutional rights, arbitrary award of supply orders, lack of transparency in the tender process
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the principles of fairness, reasonableness, and non-discrimination in government actions, as established in various Supreme Court cases, and highlighted the need for transparency in awarding public contracts. The court found the actions of the respondents to be arbitrary and in violation of constitutional rights, leading to directions for initiating departmental and criminal actions against the responsible authorities and for adherence to settled norms in awarding contracts in the future.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the writ petition with directions for initiating departmental and criminal actions against the responsible authorities, recovery of the amount to the extent of loss suffered by the public exchequer, and adherence to settled norms in awarding contracts in the future.
"a. that respondent Deputy Commissioner Kargil/ Chairman District Purchase Committee Kargil be commanded to take a decision with regard to tender issued by way of annexure A by invoking Art. 226 of Constitution of India read with section 103 of Constitution of J&K.
b. writ of certiorari quashing supply orders issued in favour of respondent no.6 in violation of Rules and Regulations.
c. writ of mandamus that matter be got investigated by State Vigilance Department.
d. by writ of mandamus commanding respondent Deputy Commissioner Kargil/chairman District Level Purchase Committee and respondents 7 to 14 to compensate petitioner by adequate compensation by resorting to under hand methods by showering favours to respondent No.6 in violation of Rules and Regulations.
e. that the action of official respondents is in violation of Art. 14 and Art. 19 of Constitution of India and also other provisions of Constitution.
f. any other relief which the Honble court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case be granted in favour of petitioner against respondent."
2. Briefly stated the case of petitioner is that he is an engineering graduate and as he could not secure Government job, in order to sustain himself launched business of dealing with computers and its accessories under the name and style of "B-2 Computers Kargil". A tender notice was issued by Dy. Commissioner/Chief Executive Officer LAHDC Kargil bearing No. CMO-K/Acctt-24/2005 dated 05.09.2006, wherein and where-under sealed tenders were invited from the manufacturers, or registered/authorized dealers for supply of computer sets with accessories required by the office for the year 2006-07, as shown in annexure "A" of the said tender notice. The last date for receipt of tender(s) was fixed as 22nd of Sept. 2006 up to 2 PM. The petitioner responded to the tender notice and submitted all his documents to the competent authority. The tenders were opened on 23rd of Sept. 2006 by the Accounts Officer posted in the Office of Dy. Commissioner Kargil. The tender according to petitioner were neither accepted nor rejected and petitioner claims that in-fact no decision has been taken by Dy. Commissioner/Chief Executive Officer Kargil till the date of filing of the writ petition. Further the grievance of petitioner is that respondent No.1 did not take any decision in respect of tender notice dated 5th Sept.2006, and the said authority was approached by filing of applications as also by making oral requests for taking decision in the matter.
3. The petitioner further submits that Principal Degree College Kargil floated tender for supply of computers and other connected accessories vide tender notice No. GDC-K/Acctt-12/333-50 dated 10th August 2006. Petitioner having responded to the said tender notice was allotted work for supply of computers to the said Degree College. The petitioner further submits that following departments i.e District Industries Central, Kargil; Chief Education Office Kargil; Tourism Department Kargil; Handicraft Department Kargil; District Hospital Kargil; Weights and Measures Department Kargil; Chief Medical Officer Kargil and Assistant Labour Department Kargil also required computers but for purchase of computers tenders were not floated and in cruel disregard to the settled norms the supply orders were issued in favour of respondent No.6 and this act of the official respondents has infringed constitutional rights of the petitioner. The petitioner further states that he made all efforts to obtain copy of supply order issued in favour of respondent No.6 but same was not provided to the petitioner by the Dy. Commissioner Kargil for malafide reasons. The petitioner, however, submits that one such supply order issued by General Manager District Industries Centre Kargil dated 21st Nov. 2006 was obtained by him which has been placed on the writ record as annexure "F". The petitioner submits that
