IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RAJESH SHANKAR, J.
M/s. Data Tech – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 4559 of 2018
Decided On : 04-08-2021
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 - Tender notice - Bidders - Rate/supply of stationery and other articles - Writ petition is that Department of Planning-cum-Finance, Government (respondent no. 2) invited tender notice dated from eligible bidders for fixing rate/supply of stationery and other articles as well as computer and its peripherals - Petitioner submitted its bid for supply of computer and its peripherals and was found lowest bidder for said category. It had quoted rate for each desktop computer of “Dell Company” with specification mentioned therein and for multifunctional Laser Jet Printer of “HP Company” - Supply order as contained in letter no. 74 dated was issued in favour of petitioner for supply of 18 numbers of desktop computers of “Dell company” and one multifunctional Laser Jet Printer of “HP Company” as finalized by departmental purchase committee of respondent no. 2 at rate quoted by petitioner - Whether any fresh tender was required to be floated for purchasing computer sets – Held, Court of considered view that respondent authority has arbitrarily withheld bill presented by petitioner amounting without any justifiable reason and as such payment of pending bill shall also carry interest at rate of 6% per annum from date of its presentation before respondent no. 5 - Impugned letter no. 948 dated issued by respondent no. 5 is hereby quashed - Respondent nos. 4 and 5 are directed to make payment against invoice dated for supply of 18 numbers of desktop computers (Dell) and one multipurpose laser jet printer (HP) which have been delivered to respondent-Institute by petitioner - Respondent nos. 4 and 5 are also directed to make payment of interest at rate of 6% per annum on due amount of bill w.e.f. till its actual payment - Writ petition is accordingly allowed.
ORDER :
1. The present case is taken up today through video conferencing.
2. The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing letter no. 948 dated 28.08.2018 issued by the Joint Director, Shri Krishna Institute of Public Administration, Ranchi (the respondent no. 5) whereby the petitioner has been informed that due to certain reasons, supply order as contained in Letter No. 74 dated 14.06.2018 has been cancelled by the respondent no. 4 and thus the petitioner has been requested to take back 18 computers as well as 01 multifunctional Laser Jet Printer of “HP Company” supplied by it through challan no. 40/18 dated 09.07.2018. Further prayer has been made for directing the respondents to make payment of the admitted dues of Rs. 11,22,357/- along with suitable interest to the petitioner against invoice dated 09.07.2018 with respect to supply of 18 numbers of desktop computers (Dell) and one multipurpose Laser Jet Printer (HP) to Shri Krishna Institute of Public Administration, Government of Jharkhand (respondent no. 3) which have already been installed and are functional.
3. The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the Department of Planning-cum-Finance, Government of Jharkhand (respondent no. 2) invited tender notice dated 09.09.2016 from the eligible bidders for fixing rate/supply of stationery and other articles as well as computer and its peripherals. The petitioner submitted its bid for supply of computer and its peripherals and was found the lowest bidder for the said category. It had quoted the rate of Rs. 52,275/- for each desktop computer of “Dell Company” with the specification mentioned therein and Rs. 10,200/- for multifunctional Laser Jet Printer of “HP Company”. The supply order as contained in letter no. 74 dated 14.06.2018 was issued in favour of the petitioner for supply of 18 numbers of desktop computers of “Dell company” and one multifunctional Laser Jet Printer of “HP Company” as finalized by the departmental purchase committee of the respondent no. 2 at the rate quoted by the petitioner. The petitioner supplied the materials to the respondent-Institute raising bills for a sum of Rs. 11,22,357/- vide challan no. 40/2018 dated 09.07.2018. The respondent no. 5, vide letter no. 99 dated 17.07.2018, while acknowledging supply of 18 desktop computers, asked the petitioner to install all the computers in computer lab of the said institute by 20.07.2018 with an assurance that payment of the bills would be made thereafter. The petitioner installed all the computers on 19.07.2018 in the computer lab of the respondent no. 3 which were working satisfactorily. The representative of the respondent no. 5 who was present at the time of installation also signed the installation report. After waiting for more than forty days, the petitioner, vide letter dated 28.08.2018 requested the respondent no. 5 to release the payment of bills, however instead of making payment, the respondent no. 5 issued impugned letter no. 948 dated 28.08.2018 to the petitioner informing that the supply order as contained in letter no. 74 dated 14.06.2018 has been cancelled for certain reasons by the respondent no. 4 and it was requested to take back all the 18 desktop computers and 01 multipurpose Laser Jet Printer supplied vide Challan No. 40/18 dated 09.07.2018. The petitioner made representation dated 29.08.2018 before the respondent no. 5 showing its inability to take back the supplied materials as after obtaining technical verification report of all the computers, the consignment serial numbers of computer systems was already registered with “Dell India Limited” for service support in the name of the respondent no. 3 and hence requested to release the payment within seven days. However, no action was taken on the petitioner’s representation.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the supply order as contained in letter no. 74 dated 14.06.2018 issued by the respondent no. 5 has been cancelled in mos
Commissioner of Police, Bombay vs. Gordhandas Bhanji
Mohinder Singh Gill vs. Chief Election Commissioner
Punjab National Bank and Others vs. Atmanand Singh and Others
SupremeToday
The court upheld the respondent's right to withhold payments due to the petitioner's failure to fulfill supply obligations, emphasizing that contractual disputes should be resolved through appropriat....
Public distribution system – Cancellation of licence - Cancellation of Absence of reasoning as to the mandatory requirement of provision which conferred jurisdiction on the quasi judicial authority o....
Quasi-judicial authorities must issue reasoned decisions for transparency and accountability, ensuring that justice is both done and perceived to be done.
The dismissal of a writ petition due to the petitioner's repeated non-appearance in hearings illustrates the necessity of adherence to principles of natural justice in administrative proceedings.
The importance of full and fair disclosure of all material facts when invoking the court's jurisdiction, and the consequences of suppressing material facts in a writ petition.
Once the award is notified and the contract is executed, the tender cannot be unilaterally cancelled. Arbitrary cancellation of a tender by a state authority is violative of Article 14 of the Constit....
The petitioner's duty to disclose all material facts without suppression or distortion, and the consequences of failing to do so, as established by the court's decision.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.