Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the invitation to tender dated 14.6.2016 (Annexure-1) is the job work for printing of books. The quality of papers and the nature of work of printing of books, is absolutely different and distinct than that of work order is clear from Section II, "Technical Specification", itself discloses that printing was for the books without paper and the paper was to be supplied for printing by the Corporation, has been clearly mentioned in the item of printing paper is also absolutely clear from Section (iii) (A), the nature of work, where the statement in block letter has been mentioned as "Rates for different sequences of book printing for sheet fed/Web offset" itself indicates the job was for printing of the books. The job work was for printing of books with addition of the cost of paper, the invitation to tender reflects the rate Patna High Court CWJC No.350 of 2017 dt.26-02-2018 5 of printing of books and other incidental and allied works connected with printing of books like printing cover page. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on tender dated 20.1.2015 (Annexure-4), discloses that this invitation of tender was not for printing of books but, was meant for Brochure Printing of Report Card, quality of paper has been mentioned as 250 GSM Matt finish Art Board paper (Size A/4-21.5X28 Cms) for the Class of I to V. This NIT is inclusive of paper. He has further relied on letter dated 12.11.2015, Short Tender Notice (Annexure-5) for printing D.R.R. Calendar, 2016 depicting road safety, number of pieces has been stipulated, the purpose has been mentioned, quality of paper and size have also been given which indicates that this document is of printing of calendar with specification of paper. Total value of work was 9,43,55,889/-. Annexure-2 is the list of establishments selected for printing the material, are altogether 54 but, the work order has been issued to only 26 persons without following the proper procedure and the volume of the work allotted to different establishments in improper ratio but, in a complete irrational manner, some establishments have been allotted the work of small quantity and some establishments have been allotted work of huge quantity. It has further been submitted that the work order has been issued to M/s Samar Offset, Shahganj, Patna Cold Storage Compound, Patna which Patna High Court CWJC No.350 of 2017 dt.26-02-2018 6 had not even participated in the tender, itself reflects working of the Managing Director in the matter of granting states largess. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this court towards paragraph no. 19 of the counter affidavit wherein it has been accepted that the said organization did not participate in the tender but, has been given his own explanation that in view of the practice followed by the Corporation, the work order would be given at the lowest rate for each and every work and this is not the practice that the work would only be given to the establishment which has participated in the tender but, it must be ensured the L1 rate. The purpose for the tender is only for obtaining the lowest rate for each and every nature of work and as per practice that the work order could be issued even to the establishment which had not participated in the tender. It will be relevant to quote paragraph no.19 of the counter affidavit which reads as follows:-

Merit Consideration:- Issue No. III & IV

36. The principle has been outlined in the judgment in the case of Ramana Dayaram Shetty Vs. The International Airport Authroity of India & Ors. reported in AIR 1979 SC 1628 the State largess would be distributed in the matter of granting work order, jobs and other benefits to citizenry wherein the Court has put emphasis, there should be proper exercise of power in the distribution of state largess, the fairness, legality, transparency requires to be applied. The Corporation is an instrumentality authority under the Constitution as provided under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It will exercise the power of discretion always subject to the constitutional or public law limitation which prescribes in a matter of illegal exercise of power deals with area in the matter of granting of jobs, state largess, must maintain transparency, power and discretion must be exercised reasonably and properly, as Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in the state action and ensures fairness and equality of treatments, it requires that State action must not be arbitrary but must be based on some rational, relevant principle which is non-discriminatory. It will not be Patna High Court CWJC No.350 of 2017 dt.26-02-2018 45 guided by extraneous and irrelevant considerations, that would amount to denial of equality and rationality. The principle of reasonableness and rationality which is legally as well as philosophically an essential element of equality or non-arbitrariness is protected by Article 14 and the State should not act arbitrarily while entering into the relationship directly, contractual or otherwise with the third party. It will be relevant to quote paragraph nos. 20 & 21 which reads as follows:-

66. We may add that there cannot be any policy, much less, a rational policy of allotting land on the basis of applications made by individuals, bodies, Patna High Court CWJC No.350 of 2017 dt.26-02-2018 60 organisations or institutions dehors an invitation or advertisement by the State or its agency/instrumentality. By entertaining applications made by individuals, organisations or institutions for allotment of land or for grant of any other type of largesse the State cannot exclude other eligible persons from lodging competing claim. Any allotment of land or grant of other form of largesse by the State or its agencies/instrumentalities by treating the exercise as a private venture is liable to be treated as arbitrary, discriminatory and an act of favouritism and/or nepotism violating the soul of the equality clause embodied in Article 14 of the Constitution.‖