Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. It is further claim of the petitioner that in pursuance of the tender notice issued on 28-2-1997 the present petitioner and about 22 other printers had purchased the tender papers-forms for the said printing of KHEDUT POTHI but in view of the cancellation of the said tender advertisement and in view of the decision taken by the State Government to print and prepare the said KHEDUT POTHI through its own presses, the petitioner and other printers had no alternative than to keep mum. It is further alleged by the petitioner that thereafter the work of printing and preparing the said KHEDUT POTHI was carried out in the Government Presses. But all of a sudden the Government again decided to give that work to other outside agencies without calling any tender and without issuing a public advertisement. This news appeared in Gujarat Samachar on 9-2-1997. He also came to know that the respondent No. 4 was given the work of preparing 36 lacs copies of KHEDUT POTHI. Print Vision Pvt. Ltd., respondent No. 5 was given the work of preparing 7 lacs copies and Gujarat Offset Works, respondent No. 6 was given the job of preparing 6 lacs of copies and that was done without inviting any public tender and without following the process set out in the Government Resolution. It is the contention of the petitioner that these respondent Nos. 4, 5 & 6 are to get printing material, i.e., paper from the Government and they have to carry out the work of printing as well as binding, sewing and laminating the cover page of the said KHEDUT POTHI. It is his claim that the said job costs only Rs. 3/- per copy as per the Government Resolution but the said work is entrusted to the respondents at the rate of Rs. 8.95 per copy. It is his claim that he can undertake the responsibility of undertaking the said job by supplying each copy at the cost of Rs. 5/- only. Thus, according to him in the jobwork of 50 lacs copies there is a clear margin of Rs. 4/ - per copy and thus there is illegal spending of nearly Rs. 2 crores of public money. It is his claim that this job which will cost Rs. 2 crores excess has been granted by the respondents for illegal consideration. There must be some bribe and kickback and sharing profits by the Government and its officers with respondent Nos. 4 to 6. Thus, according to the petitioner the said action of the respondent is clearly case of fraud of public money and misuse of public funds. The said action is illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable and therefore, This Court should intervene and cancel the said agreements in favour of respondent Nos. 4 to 6 and to direct the State Government to recover the amounts paid to respondent Nos. 4 to 6.

6. The respondent No. 4 has contested the claim of the petitioner by filing affidavit-in-reply. It is contended that the petitioner has not bona fide filed this petition and that it is mala fidely filed in order to pressurise the petitioner's competitor in business. It is contended that the petitioner has come at a stage when contract given to respondent No. 4 has been subsequently carried out. It is contended that the petitioner must have known from the news report which appeared in Gujarat Samachar on 11-10-1997 that Government has thought it fit to give the printing work of KHEDUT POTHI to private agencies as it was impossible for the Government to complete the same in the Government press within the stipulated time. The Government has placed the order with respondent No. 4 on 16th October and equities have changed substantially when this petition came before This Court and it would not be advisable as well as proper to interfere with the action of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 by exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is contended that respondent No. 4 is quite confident to do the job in question. As against this the petitioner has no capacity to complete the said job as per the assessment made by the Government team. It is contended that the rate offered by respondent No. 4 was quite reasonable and there is no illegal spending of Public Exchequer as claimed by the petitioner. It is further contended that the claim of the petitioner that there is a margin of Rs. 2 crores is false and there is no kickback or bribe or sharing of profit with the Government or its officer as alleged by the petitioner. Thus, it is contended that the petitioner's petition be dismissed with costs.

1. Whether the respondent No. 1 was justified in not inviting tenders by giving an advertisement for the contract in question?

2. Whether the procedure followed by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in selecting respondent Nos. 4 to 6 for the job in question is proper and correct in the circumstances of the case?

3. Whether there was any giving of kickbacks or undertable dealing in giving the said contract?

4. Whether the rate of Rs. 8.95 per KHEDUT POTHI given to the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 is the reasonable and proper rate? If not, what is the reasonable rate?