Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The order dated 21.11.2003 shows that the writ petitioner has been suspended for purchase of five numbers of Pontoons at an inflated price of Rs. 2 lakh per Pontoon for Jorhat Water Supply Scheme against the market price of each Pontoon being Rs. 22,000/-. It further appears that the order for purchase of the aforesaid five numbers of Pontoons was issued without inviting tender and in violation of the prescribed procedure and the rules.

4. Mr. P.K. Goswami, learned senior counsel for the petitioner assailed the order of suspension on the following grounds :-

(1) That the suspension order was issued on 21.11.2003 and till date the respondent authority has not initiated any proceeding against the writ petitioner.

(2) The order for purchase of Pontoons was placed by the writ petitioner in pursuance of a decision taken by the Board and not taken by him alone in his capacity as Managing Director.

(3) That the rate of the Pontoon was fixed by the Board long time back and it was followed in all purchases made by the Board.

5. Mr. Goswami, learned senior counsel relying on the statements made in the writ petition tried to justify the above contentions. According to Shri Goswami, the Managing Director of the Board cannot act on his own for entering into a contract or to place any order for any other item to be purchased by the Board. The decision taken is always collective and is given effect with due approval of the Chairman. The Managing Director is an authority who executes the decision of the Board.

6. It would appear that the respondent authority did not submit any affidavit in this petition though a Rule was issued on 24.2.2004. Mr. Talukdar, learned State counsel was directed by the order dated 21.6.2004 to produce the records relating to the purchase of Pontoons by the Board.

7. It would appear that the Executive Engineer of Jorhat Division of the Board wrote the letter dated 24.4.2003 to the Managing Director requesting him for supply of items including five numbers of M.S. Floating Pontoons. The said letter was accompanied by a report from the Assistant Executive Engineer which was appended with this requisition to justify requirements. On receipt of the said requisition, the Managing Director submitted a proposal to the Chairman of the Board that the above items be procured in compliance of Rules and at approved rate. The said proposal for purchase of the Pontoons at the approved rate was cleared by the Chairman on 3.5.2003 by putting his initial on the note sheet. After receipt of the approval from the Chairman, the file was sent to the Assistant Executive Engineer who in turn submitted a proposal for approval of the rate of hose pipe and as regards the price of the Pontoons, the Executive Engineer proposed the rate of the Pontoons as approved in the year 1995 and purchases of Pontoons were made according for Zoo Road Water Supply Scheme in Guwahati City. It transpires from the writ petition that the Board had approved and fixed the price of Pontoon at Rs. 1 lakh in the year 1985. It further appears that tender is not floated in case of purchase of items in respect of which the Board had already approved the price. It is on the basis of the price fixed in 1985 the petitioner tried to justify the price of each Pontoons at Rs. 2 lakh.

F.F.O. Signature, dated 17.05.2003."

8. The writ petitioner (Managing Director) considered the above note and placed the same before the Chairman with the observation that the price of twin type Pontoons will be Rs. 2 lakh. The Chairman approved the aforesaid note. It is on the basis of the approval given by the Chairman, as aforesaid, the writ petitioner as Managing Director cleared the proposal for purchase of the Pontoons.

9. From the averments made in the writ petition, it is clear that the decision arrived at was the collective decision of all concerned including the Chairman. The rate of Pontoons approved in 1985 have been followed in all subsequent purchases and, therefore, the responsibility for purchases made in 2003 cannot be placed on the writ petitioner alone. The writ petitioner as Managing Director had no option but to implement the decision of the Board. Hence, Shri Goswami, learned senior counsel submitted that the writ petitioner has been victimised in the instant case for no fault of his own. According to Shri Goswami, a thorough and intensive enquiry is necessary to find out the root cause for having fixed the price of the Pontoons at Rs. 1 lakhs in the year 1985.