S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA, J. - (1.) PETITIONER Atma Ram Agencies Ltd. of W.P.(C) No. 4310 of 2002 (1st writ petition for short) assailed the question of the Respondents State authorities to accept the price quotation for supply of units of Tractor with Trailer of 4th Respondent -Chhotanagpur Agro Agencies, Ranchi -petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 5981 of 2002 (2nd Writ petition for short). The order for supply of units of tractor with Trailer given in favour of the said 4th Respondent was alleged to be illegal, arbitrary, unfair, mala fide, discriminatory and suffers from lack of transparency, fairness, openess etc.
(2.) DURING the pendency of the first writ petition, the respondents published a notice on 14th August, 2002 in newspaper 'PRABHAT KHABAR', whereby it cancelled the earlier tender notice published in the newspaper dated 12th May, 2002 and the corrigendum published on 19th may, 2002 in respect of tender inviting supply of Tractors with Trailers. It having affected, the 4th Respondent -Chhotanagpur Agro Agencies, preferred the 2nd writ petition and challenged the notice dated 14th August, 2002. In the aforesaid background, both the writ petitions were heard together for their disposal by common order/judgment. The fact as admitted in both the cases is that the Respondents Jharkhand State Scheduled Tribes Cooperative Developments Corporation Ltd., Ranchi (Corporation for short) issued a tender notice in newspaper on 5th April, 2002 asking sealed quotation from manufacturers/authorized dealers of Tractors to give their lowest rate for purchase of 68 units of Tractors as per Specification 40/45 H.P. It followed by another notice published in newspaper on 12th May, 2002 for submission of sealed quotation from manufacturers/authorized dealers of Tractors giving their lowest rate for purchase of Tractors with Trailers. The specification of engine was shown as 40 H.P. (2700 C.C.). A corrigendum was published on 19th May, 2002, modifying the notice published on 12th May, 2002 and inplace of engine specification of 40 H.P. (2700 C.C.), it was ordered to read as 40 H.R (2500 C.C. and above). The petitioner Atma Ram Agencies Ltd. (of 1st writ petition); petitioner Chhotanagpur Agro Agencies (4th Respondent in the first writ petition and petitioner in the 2nd writ petition) and others submitted tenders with their quotation for supply of Tractors with Trailers. Atma Ram Agencies Ltd., the petitioner of 1st writ petition quoted Rs. 2,87,733/ - for supply of one unit of Tractor with tripping trailer and Rs. 2,78,408 per unit of Tractor with non -trapping Trailer (Hindustan MG. 405 Model). The Chhotanagpur Agro Agencies, 4th Respondent -petitioner of 2nd writ petition quoted Rs. 3,10,449/ - per unit of Tractor and Trailer (Escorts 440 Pt. Model). Subsequently, the Respondents Corporation having selected the Chhotanagpur Agro Agencies, 4th Respondent - petitioner of 2nd writ petition and having ordered to supply Tractors with Trailers (Escorts 440 Pt. Model), the 1st writ petition was preferred. The Corporation vide letter No. 380 dated 30th May, 2002 issued supply order to Chhotanagpur Agro Agencies, 4th Respondent - petitioner of 2th writ petition for supply of 68 nos. of Tractors for a sum of Rs. 2,14,05,720/ -. The amount was also paid to the said Agencies, vide D.D. No. 93398 dated 30th May, 2002. The very next date, the Respondents Corporation issued another order on 31st May, 2002 in favour of Chhotanagpur Agro Agencies, 4th Respondent -petitioner of 2nd writ petition for supply of another 65 nos. of Tractors and Trailers (Escorts 440 Pt. Model) for a sum of Rs. 2,04,61,350/ - and paid the amount vide two cheques. Immediately thereafter as the dispute raised and writ petitions were preferred, inspite of request made by the 4th Respondent, Chhotanagpur Agro Agencies -petitioner of 2nd writ petition, delivery of Tractors and Trailers were not taken by the Corporation.
(3.) ANOTHER writ petition namely, W.P.(C) No. 3408 of 2002 was preferred by one International Tractors Ltd. Against the decision to award supply order in favour of Chhotanagpur Agro Agencies, petitioner of 2nd writ petition. It having dismissed, the International Tractors Ltd. preferred L.P.A. No. 368 of 2002. Before the appellate Court, the argument as advanced and noticed by the Court, as hereunder ; 'During the course of marathon hearing, several issues forming the subject matter of this appeal were canvassed and argued before us by the learned counsel for the parties. One such issue raised to the prescription of specification for the purchase of the tractors ; the other about the competence of an Individual Junior ranking officer in Birsa Agricultural University on whose recommendations the specifications were fixed. The third issues was as to whether it could not have been desirable if a multi member committee would have been entrusted the task of selection of the tractors, on the basis of the best available options and the lowest price. 2 During the course of arguments it came out that initially the respondents had invited quotations for purchase of tractors of 40/45H.P., this was later on cancelled, subsequently, another NIT was Issued inviting quotations for purchase of tractors having engine of 40 H.P. (2700 C.C.) and this was subsequently modified in the sense that the cubic capacity was changed from 2700 C.C. to 2500 C.C. and above. This modification and change in the specification gave rise to the controversy forming the subject matter of the present appeal. It was argued during the course of hearing that either the respondents should have specified the H.P. only on the cubic capacity of the engine only because specifying the H.P. and the Cubic Capacity simultaneously, perhaps, was not required. 3. It was also argued that merely on the basis of an advise rendered by a junior Ranking Farm Superintendent in the Agricultural University, the respondentsshould not have taken this vital decision and they should have involved technical experts preferably Automobile Engineers who knew about the tractors and the plying of the tractors in the field. It was also argued that actually a multi member committee should have collectively taken a decision in the matter.' In the meantime, the tender notice having cancelled by the Corporation, the appeal rendered infructuous vide order 28th August, 2002.;