- (1.) THE appellant has preferred this appeal against the order dated 9.11.2004, passed in W.P.(C) No. 2961/2004 whereby the said writ application filed by him was disposed of without accepting the appellant's prayer for quashing the letter No. 669 dated 4.6.2004, issued by the Deputy Development Commissioner (respondent No. 2). The appellant had filed the said writ application, inter alia, praying for quashing the aforesaid letter No. 669 dated 4.6.2004, issued by the respondent No. 2, whereby the appellant's contract for transportation of food grains was terminated as a corollary and consequence of cancelling the letter No. 506 dated 31.3.2004 by which the contract for transportation of food grains under District Rural Employment Programme for the financial year 2004 -05 had been awarded.
(2.) ACCORDING to the appellant, he was awarded the contract for transportation of food grains for district rural employment agency, to transport to each block on certain terms and conditions incorporated in the agreement dated 25.1.2002. The said agreement was for the period from June 2002 to March 2003. The appellant successfully completed the terms in accordance with the stipulation of the agreement and having been satisfied with the appellant's work the period of his contract was extended for further period for 2003 -2004 and subsequently for the year 2004 -2005 on the same terms and conditions. For the period 2004 -2005 a fresh agreement was entered into between the appellant and respondent No. 2 dated 31.2.2004. According to Clause 7 of the terms of the agreement, the second party was given option to cancel the agreement on detection of any illegality. The appellant's case is that in order to execute the work under contract, he hired trucks by entering into another agreement with the truck owners on the term of payment of Rs. 10,000/ - per month. Suddenly the respondent No. 2 by his letter No. 669 dated 4.6.2004 informed the appellant that the Deputy Development Commissioner after discussion has directed to invite open tender for the purpose of transportation of food grains for the remaining period and that on appointment of the contractor after the said tender, the contract with the appellant would automatically come to an end. The grievance of the appellant is that there was no irregularity or illegality on his part and no illegality has been pointed out to him giving him any notice or an opportunity of hearing. According to the appellant he has changed his position on the basis of the said extension of the contract by hiring trucks for one year on the monthly rent of Rs. 10,000/ - and that sudden termination would cause him irreparable loss and injury and shall visit him with evil consequences and that the order as contained in the letter dated 4.6.2004 is wholly arbitrary and illegal. The State -respondents contested the appellant's claim by filing a counter affidavit. It has been stated that the appellant was given contract to transport food grains to each block of East Singbhum district in 2002 -2003 as he was the tenderer with the lowest rate. The officers of the different blocks reported that the work of the appellant was satisfactory. The contract was extended for 2003 -04. In the month of March 2004 a declaration was made for holding general election. The Election Commission of India imposed Model Code of Conduct. Under such circumstance, open tender process could not be initiated in course of the said election process till 3rd week of May 2004 and as such the Managing Director, D.R.D.A. issued an order further extending the period of the appellant's contract for the year 2004 -05. It has been further stated that one local transporter was interested in dislodging the appellant from the said work. He filed a petition before the Deputy Commissioner with recommendation of the local M.L.A. He represented that he was ready to do the transportation work at the rate lower than that of the appellant. On such recommendation, the Deputy Commissioner ordered for a fresh tender mentioning therein that the appellant shall be allowed to continue the said work till finalisation of the tender process. It has been also stated that the respondent No. 2 has right to invite a fresh tender cancelling the appellant's contract as there was no people's participation, in allotting the said work to the appellant. The State -respondents thus tried to support the extension of the period of contract in favour of the appellant on the one hand and on the other also justified the impugned order for fresh tender and cancellation of the appellant's said agreement.
(3.) ONE Lawa Purti who happens to be subsequent tenderer intervened in course of hearing of the said writ application and he was so allowed. According to him the extension of period of contract in favour of the appellant, without people's participation, was illegal. He claimed that the rates quoted by him for the transportation work in question is lower than the rate given by the appellant and as such there is no illegality in the order contained in letter No. 669/2004.;