Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR For the Petitioner : Ms. Surabhi, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, A.C. to Sr.S.C.- III Order No. 09 Dated: 04.08.2021 The present case is taken up today through video conferencing.

2. The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing letter no. 948 dated 28.08.2018 issued by the Joint Director, Shri Krishna Institute of Public Administration, Ranchi (the respondent no.5) whereby the petitioner has been informed that due to certain reasons, supply order as contained in letter No. 74 dated 14.06.2018 has been cancelled by the respondent no. 4 and thus the petitioner has been requested to take back 18 computers as well as 01 multifunctional Laser Jet Printer of "HP Company" supplied by it through challan no. 40/18 dated 09.07.2018. Further prayer has been made for directing the respondents to make payment of the admitted dues of Rs. 11,22,357/- along with suitable interest to the petitioner against invoice dated 09.07.2018 with respect to supply of 18 numbers of desktop computers (Dell) and one multipurpose Laser Jet Printer (HP) to Shri Krishna Institute of Public Administration, Government of Jharkhand (respondent no.3) which have already been installed and are functional.

3. The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the Department of Planning-cum-Finance, Government of Jharkhand (respondent no.2) invited tender notice dated 09.09.2016 from the eligible bidders for fixing rate/supply of stationery and other articles as well as computer and its peripherals. The petitioner submitted its bid for supply of computer and its peripherals and was found the lowest bidder for the said category. It had quoted the rate of Rs.52,275/- for each desktop computer of "Dell Company" with the specification mentioned therein and Rs. 10,200/- for multifunctional Laser Jet Printer of "HP Company". The supply order as contained in letter no. 74 dated 14.06.2018 was issued in favour of the petitioner for supply of 18 numbers of desktop computers of "Dell company" and one multifunctional Laser Jet Printer of "HP Company" as finalized by the departmental purchase committee of the respondent no. 2 at the rate quoted by the petitioner. The petitioner supplied the materials to the respondent- Institute raising bills for a sum of Rs.11,22,357/- vide challan no. 40/2018 dated 09.07.2018. The respondent no. 5, vide letter no. 99 dated 17.07.2018, while acknowledging supply of 18 desktop computers, asked the petitioner to install all the computers in computer lab of the said institute by 20.07.2018 with an assurance that payment of the bills would be made thereafter. The petitioner installed all the computers on 19.07.2018 in the computer lab of the respondent no. 3 which were working satisfactorily. The representative of the respondent no. 5 who was present at the time of installation also signed the installation report. After waiting for more than forty days, the petitioner, vide letter dated 28.08.2018 requested the respondent no.5 to release the payment of bills, however instead of making payment, the respondent no.5 issued impugned letter no. 948 dated 28.08.2018 to the petitioner informing that the supply order as contained in letter no. 74 dated 14.06.2018 has been cancelled for certain reasons by the respondent no. 4 and it was requested to take back all the 18 desktop computers and 01 multipurpose Laser Jet Printer supplied vide challan No. 40/18 dated 09.07.2018. The petitioner made representation dated 29.08.2018 before the respondent no. 5 showing its inability to take back the supplied materials as after obtaining technical verification report of all the computers, the consignment serial numbers of computer systems was already registered with "Dell India Limited" for service support in the name of the respondent no. 3 and hence requested to release the payment within seven days. However, no action was taken on the petitioner's representation.

10. In the present case, the respondent-Institute while justifying the impugned letter has contended that the petitioner had misrepresented in getting the supply order in question issued in its favour. On the other hand, the claim of the petitioner is that the respondent no. 2 had floated a tender in order to fix the rate for supply of computer and its peripherals for the use of various sections and cells of the said department for the financial years 2016-17 and 2017-18. The petitioner was found as the lowest bidder in the said tender and rate offered by it was approved. Accordingly, the supply of computers and its peripherals were made to the Finance Department. The respondent no. 5, vide letter no. 74 dated 14.06.2018, placed supply order for 18 desktop computers of "Dell Company" and one HP multifunctional Laser Jet Printer at the rate approved by the departmental purchase committee of the respondent no.2. Supply of the computers and printer has not been denied by the respondent-Institute and the same are still in its possession. No allegation has been made by the respondent-Institute regarding any defect in the supplied materials. Moreover, no specific reason has been assigned in the impugned letter for cancellation of the supply order, rather it has been stated- "for certain reasons" which in my view appears to be completely vague and not sufficient to cancel the supply which has already been made by the petitioner and the same has been received by the respondent-Institute without any objection.