J U D G M E N T

Dated this the 24th day of May, 2022 The petitioner, who is the General Manager of a publishing enterprises, has approached this Court seeking to quash Exts.P1 to P3 and to direct respondents 1 and 2 to conclude the contract of downloading and publishing the materials in respect of the translated 74 titles in 26 subjects from the website of the 3rd respondent only by way of e-tender.

2. The petitioner states that the 3rd respondent-SCERT decided to engage the service of the 4th respondent-Calicut University Central Co-operative Stores Limited to print, publish, market and conduct sale of certain books and materials. It was decided that the sale of books will be following the instructions issued by respondents 2 and 3. It was further decided that the 4th respondent would pay 15% royalty to the 3rd respondent along with the G.S.T. charges.

3. The petitioner submits that while awarding the work to the 4th respondent, there was no tendering process or transparency involved. The 2nd respondent, however, passed Ext.P2 order granting permission for entrusting the work of downloading, printing and publishing to the 4th respondent as per the stipulations contained in Ext.P1. Later, Ext.P3 tripartite agreement was entered into.

4. The petitioner submits that the work entrusted with the

4th respondent is of more than ` 15 Crores. The work has been entrusted to the 4th respondent in a clandestine manner. The `

price of each textbook, even if taken at a nominal price of 60- 80, will fetch the 4th respondent more than ` 20 Crores. The work was granted to the 4th respondent in gross violation of Ext.P4 G.O.(MS) No.08/2013/ITD dated 26.03.2013.

5. In order to ensure transparency and to rule out any possibility of corruption and nepotism, the Government of India has issued Ext.P6 guidelines for e-procurement. The provisions contained in Ext.P6 guidelines are also violated in this case.

The respondents can enter into a contract only adopting one of the accepted processes, i.e., the direct purchase, quotation or tender. The work has been given to the 4th respondent illegally without resorting to any of these procedures. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Exts.P1 to P3 orders are highly arbitrary, they being passed without following due procedure. The 4th respondent has to only download, print and publish the materials. The prices of the books are not disclosed.

The entire process lacks transparency.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further pointed out that as per Ext.P1, the royalty payable to the 3rd respondent is 15%. However, subsequently, a tripartite agreement has been entered into between respondents 2 to 4 and the royalty has been reduced to 5%. This is clearly illegal and unauthorised.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further urged that the relevant provisions under the Financial Codes and Store Manuals prohibit the awarding of such contract without tender. The 1st respondent has succumbed to the pressure exerted by the 4th respondent, which is a Society controlled by the ruling party. For all the above reasons, Exts.P1 to P3 are liable to be set aside.

8. The 3rd respondent resisted the writ petition filing a statement. The 3rd respondent stated that the Department of General Education decided to translate all the textbooks prescribed for the Higher Secondary Courses into Malayalam and SCERT has been entrusted the work of translation. At present, only the textbooks published by certain private agencies are available in the market. The respondents have to make available to the students these textbooks at reasonable price. It was therefore decided with the consent of the Government to entrust the 4th respondent-Calicut University Central Co- operative Store with the printing of the textbooks on strict terms and conditions.

9. The 3rd respondent stated that the Government has issued the orders for the best interest of the students. The 3rd respondent has acted strictly in accordance with the direct