LAKSHMANAN, CJ. - (1.) HEARD Shri K. N. Joshi for the appellant and Mr. R. P. Dave for the respondents.
(2.) THIS writ appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2499/99 dated 29. 7. 99 dismissing the writ petition on the ground that no fundamental right of the appellant-petitioner is infringed in any manner and that there is no substance in the writ petition. The writ petition was filed by the appellant for a mandamus directing the respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 to purchase every material in accordance with the directions of the State Government by inviting tenders and for other consequential relief. According to learned counsel for the appellant the Government cannot act at its whims giving the contract in such an arbitrary manner to any particular party and the action of the respondent which is a State-instrumentality in purchasing the L. D. P. E. films from M/s. I. P. C. L. and not from the appellant company without inviting tenders is illegal. A reply was filed by the respondents in appeal to the writ petition alongwith Annex.- A. It is stated in the reply that certain orders were placed in favour of the appellant-firm for the supply of L. D. P. E. films in the year 1987-88 and in 1991-92 but the appellant failed to present for executing the agreement. Likewise, in the year 1992- 93 an order to the tune of 269 MT L. D. P. E. films was placed in favour of M/s. Rajasthan Small Scale Industrial Corporation which placed orders for supply of 40 MT L. D. P. E. films to M/s. Bohra Pratishthan (the appellant herein) but the goods so supplied were not as per specifications and vide letter dated 21. 11. 92 the appellant firm was asked to supply another lot. However, instead of supplying the goods M/s. Rajasthan Small Scale Industrial Corporation unilaterally revoked the contract on 8. 12. 92. Faced with such difficulties, the Stores Purchase Committee of the Board of Indira Gandhi Nahar Pariyojana formulated a long term policy decision for procurement of L. D. P. E. films for the canal lining. The I. P. C. L. is a Government of India undertaking and the sole manufacturer of the raw material and L. D. P. E. films are are processed by them so it was decided to purchase the films from that company in future. The minutes of the Stores Purchase Committee regarding purchase of the L. D. P. E. films have been filed with the reply as Annex.-A. We have perused the minutes of the meeting. After narrating the previous experience and the difficulties experienced by the respondents a long term policy decision for procurement of the L. D. P. E. films for canal lining was taken by the respondents. Item No. 2 of Annex. A is relevant for the purpose of deciding the questions raised in this case, which reads as follows: "item No. 2 Long Term Policy decision for procurement of LDPE film for Canal lining. It was explained by the Chief Engineer, IGNP and representative of the IPCL that they are the sole manufacturers of raw material in the country and the LDPE films are being processed by them through processors entering into an agreement with them. After keeping in view the technical aspects and proprientory nature of the material, it was decided that for making long term arrangements for procurement of LDPE film from IPCL the item of LDPE film for canal lining as per IS 2508/1984 may be got included in the list of proprietory items in GF & AR Annexure 16, Item 12 for the year 1994-95 and onwards. " It is thus seen that keeping in view all the technical aspects and the nature of the material to be supplied it was decided for making a long-term arrangement for procurement of films from the IPCL. The item of LDPE film for canal lining as per IS 2508/1984 was included in the list of proprietory items in the GF & AR for the years 1994-95 and onwards. Mr. Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant invited our attention to some decisions of the Supreme Court holding that in giving contract, licences, jobs and any beneficial advantages absolute discretion does not lie with the State or any of its instrumentalities and there should be transparency in the State action. He, therefore, submitted that the State's action in giving such contract to M/s. I. P. C. L. is not only arbitrary but malafide also whereby the State exchequer is made to suffer huge losses. There is no difficulty in accepting the proposition put forward by the learned counsel for the appellant as decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, the Supreme Court has also taken the view in latter cases that it is a discretion of the Government to accept or reject a tender in public interest and that the tender can be accepted or rejected considering the past conduct of the parties concerned, amounts quoted by way of tenders, experience and capacity of the firm to supply the goods and the financial status of the firm. The Supreme Court has held that on bestowing such consideration the State can exercise its discretion in the public interest. As already noticed, in the instant case, the respondent State was faced with the difficulties in regard to the supplies already made. Under such circumstances, the respondent is always at liberty to take a policy decision in the public interest for purchase or procurement of goods from a particular party. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that M/s. I. P. C. L. which is a Government of India undertaking is the sole manufacturer of LDPE raw material and processor of the LDPE films for canal lining and, therefore, it was decided by the respondents to purchase the LDPE films from that company in future. The decision taken by the respondent for procuring the goods from a particular party does not suffer form any irregularity and call for interference, either with its decision or the decision taken by the learned Single Judge.
(3.) THE appeal, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. .;