- (1.) The writ petition seeks for a direction that the petitioner shall not be compelled to purchase the inputs for sugarcane production only from particular Government agency i.e. HAFED, in purported compliance of letters already issued on 09.07.2010 and 02.11.2010 by the Cane Commissioner, Panchkula. The letters of the Cane Commissioner revealed that it was decided to get the cane development plans and schemes from all societies and the same would be approved by the societies concerned through the Government agency. The expression which constitute the cause for this case is a directive that, ''it should be kept in mind that if in future no parishad shall issue any advertisement for the purchase of any kind.'' In the letter dated 09.07.2010, it is again affirmed that no advertisement shall be issued for the purchase of any kind, of pesticides for the development of cane...(sic).
(2.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State points out to the notification issued in 1993 under the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act of 1984, appointing the Cane Commissioner, who would assist the Registrar, Cooperative Societies and confers on him all the powers of the Registrar in respect of sugarcane growers of Cooperative Societies, except for certain provisions mentioned in the notification. The counsel would argue that the instruction, that was given by the Cane Commissioner pursuant to the notification, is in the exercise of power conferred to a Registrar of the Cooperative Societies to control the affairs of the Sugarcane Growers Cooperative Societies and that the direction that no advertisement would be issued for the purchase of inputs came to be given only because there was no uniform policy in the matter of purchases of inputs and there had been instances where even the lowest bids were not accepted.
(3.) While the notification is clear and the policy is lofty, the manner in which it is implemented is definitely not free from doubt. The petitioner has come only with the grievance that a directive that no advertisement shall be issued for purchase of inputs is carried to an extent that the Cooperative Societies are prevented from inviting competitive bids for supply of fertilizers. The petitioner gives a comparative table along with the writ petition pointing out how the prices of pesticides as quoted by HAFED have been even more by 15% than the prices quoted by other private Companies whose products are certified as ISI compliant. The control cannot be exercised in such a way that there is even a favourtism practiced and a compulsion exercised on how the Cooperative Societies functions in the manner of purchases. To the extent to which the Cooperative Societies obtain funding from State agencies, it is perfectly legitimate that appropriate directions are given and the societies do not waste the funds that are budgeted and released to them. The directive cannot extend to any more than ensuring that the best quality inputs are obtained and competitive bids must be encouraged to ensure that the Cooperative Societies obtain the best bargain in the manner of purchases. Inviting tenders through the advertisements is the best method of obtaining such competitive bids and a directive that no purchase shall be made otherwise than from a State agency or that there shall not be advertisement issued for purchase of inputs cannot amount to lawful exercise of powers which the notification empowers the Cane Commissioner to do. Under the garb of exercise of powers vested in the notification, the Cane Commissioner shall not compel the petitioner to purchase the fertilizers or inputs only from anyone particular manufacturer or supplier if all that could be done shall be to ensure that the society that operates on public funds do not misuse them. If the instruction is carried to the extent of insistence that the pesticides should be purchased only from Government agency including HAFED, then such a direction shall forthwith be restrained through this order and the petitioner shall be permitted to invite appropriate competitive bids so long as the entire transaction is transparent and the quality of purchases are assured. The control, which the Cane Commissioner shall exercise, shall be confined to what the notification itself provides and shall not transgress to an autocratic level of functioning.;