Pioneer Plastic Industries Limited vs The Commissioner of Tribal Welfare and Another

S.R. Nayak, J.—This Writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 19.9.2001 in W.P. No. 16919 of 2001. The appellant is the petitioner in the writ petition. He filed the writ petition praying for a Mandamus declaring the action of the Commissioner of Tribal Welfare, the 1st respondent, in issuing the supply order proceedings No. I 3/1480 dated 19.7.2001 in favour of M/s. Rungta Irrigation Limited, the 2nd respondent, for supply of Sprinkler (Irrigation) sets as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the public notice dated 2.4.2001 issued by the 1st respondent and for a consequential direction to the 1st respondent to consider the offer given by the petitioner along with other participants for supply of Sprinkler (Irrigation) sets at the concluded price of Rs.16,500/-.

M/s. Satya Sai Polymers, respondent No.3 herein, was not impleaded as a party respondent in the writ petition. However, in this Writ Appeal, it is impleaded as respondent No.3 by the order of this Court made in WA.M.P No. 3525 of 2001 dated 26.2.2002.

The background facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as follows : The 1st respondent issued a short Tender Notification No. 1(3)1480/2001 dated 28.3.2001 inviting applications for the registration and supply of Sprinkler sets in the notified Tribal areas of A.P. State, pursuant to a scheme called "Oil Seeds Production Programme", which is a Central Government Scheme. The scheme is meant for welfare of the tribals in the Agency areas. In response to the said notification, as many as nine manufacturers including the writ petitioner and respondents No.2 and 3 submitted their applications quoting their rates. The 1st respondent on receipt of the applications, invited the bidders for negotiations by a Committee of Officers set up for the purpose. The writ petitioner and respondent 2 and 3 attended the meeting held on 2.6.2001. On 2.6.2001, while some of the applicants submitted revised rates, others maintained the rates originally mentioned by them in their respective applications. The following are the details of the original rates and the revised rates submitted by the nine applicants.

As seen from the particulars set-out above, the 3rd respondent offered the rate at Rs.16,500/-, both in the application submitted by it and also at the negotiations. The second respondent originally offered the rate at Rs.18,982/- and revised rate at Rs.17,000/-. The writ petitioner originally offered the rate at Rs 23,469/- and revised the rate at Rs.20,768.80 . However, at the negotiations, the representatives of the nine applicants manufacturers were advised to consult their respective managements and offer their revised prices, if they so desire, latest by 4.6.2001. According to the 1st respondent, the writ petitioner did not submit any revised offer as per the said advice before the cut-off date, i.e., 4.6.2001 and kept quiet. However, the writ petitioner submitted a letter dated 4.6.2001 on 11.6.2001. It reads as follows :

"As per the discussion held in the meeting called by you on 2.6.2001 in your office regarding above mentioned subject. In the meeting your department have requested that being the Sets to be supplied to the poorest farmers, the sets to be supplied at very competitive price so more beneficiary avail the benefit of subsidy offered by the department. In the meeting also assured that the selections and collection of Non-subsidy portion i.e. 50% of set price to be done by the concerned P.O. ITDA And payment of non-subsidy, subsidy will be given at the earliest. As per their request and advise our company have agreed to supply the Sprinkler sets at the least quoted price of Rs.16,500/- per set, inclusive of transportation, Installation and all taxes directly to the Beneficiaries through concerned P.O of I.T.D.A without involving dealers to avoid Distribution, commission and offer expenses. We request you that the payment to be released within 10-15 days from the date of submission of the Invoice and Installation certificate from the farmer in the office of the concerned Project Officer I.T.D.A.

We also assured that we provide the best service to the beneficiary beside the quality material.

Please do the needful at the earliest ad oblige".

Ultimately, the 1st respondent taking into account the revised offers made by the applicants, by his proceeding dated 17.8.2001 selected the 3rd respondent for the purpose of registering it as the approved Sprinkler System Manufacturer in terms of the scheme of the Government of India referred to above and on that basis, it is stated, the Field Officer placed indent for supply of Sprinkler sets and that the supply contract awarded to the 3rd respondent would come to an end by the end of March, 2002.

The learned Judge, opining that the action of the 1st respondent in enlisting the 3rd respondent as the registered Sprinkler System Manufacturer is not arbitrary or unreasonable, dismissed the writ petition. Hence this Writ appeal by the unsuccessful writ petitioner.

Sri Nooty Rama Mohan Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-petitioner would contend that the 1st respondent has committed a serious irregularity and illegality in enlisting only the 3rd respondent as the registered Sprinkler System Manufacturer under the scheme and he has failed to appreciate the scope and nature of the Tender Notification dated 2.4.2001, which is essentially for the purpose of registration under Rate Contract for supply of sponsored Sprinkler sets and not for the purpose of awarding any particular contract. The learned counsel would maintain that by selecting only the 3rd respondent as the registered Sprinkler System Manufacturer, the 1st respondent created a monopoly in favour of 3rd respondent which is contrary to the intendment of the scheme framed by the Government of India. The learned counsel would also contend that even according to the 1st respondent, the letter of the writ petitioner dated 4.6.2001 was received on 11.6.2001, whereas the 1st respondent as could be seen from the Proceedings in Rc. No. 1(3)/1480/2001 dated 19.7.2001 and RC. No. 1(3)/1480/2001 dated 17.8.2001, selected the 2nd respondent and the 3rd respondent respectively for registering them as authorized Sprinkler System Manufactures under the scheme and in that view of the matter, the 1st respondent had sufficient time to consider the offer made by the petitioner in his letter dated 4.6.2001. The learned counsel would contend that ignoring the letter of the petitioner dated 4.6.2001 and issuing the above two proceedings dated 19.7.2001 and 17.8.2001 is totally arbitrary and irrational and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

The learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent No.3, on the other hand, would contend that the selection of respondent No.3 for the purpose of registration cannot be condemned as irrational or arbitrary, because the rate offered by the 3rd respondent admittedly is the lowest one and the offer made by the writ petitioner through his letter dated 4.6.2001 submitted on 11.6.2001 was conditional one and therefore, the 1st respondent was well within his powers in enlisting the 3rd respondent for the purpose of registration. They would also contend that since the offer of the 3rd respondent being the lowest one , there is nothing wrong on the part of the 1st respondent in selecting only the 3rd respondent for the purpose of registration and it is not necessary to enlist the petitioner also for the purpose of registration.

Let us dispose of the second contention of the learned counsel for the appellant first, because, we do not find any merit in that contention. We have carefully perused the original records placed before us by the learned Government Pleader at the time of hearing and we could find that after 4.6.2001, none of the applicants including respondents 2 and 3 were permitted to modify their offer or make fresh offer. All offers made by the applicants in response to the notification were on 4.6.2001 or earlier. As can be seen from the letter of the writ petitioner dated 4.6.2001, but submitted to the 1st respondent on 11.6.2001, the revised offer was conditional. Be that as it may, even assuming that, the revised offer of the writ petitioner is similar to the offer made by the 3rd respondent, even then, there is nothing wrong on the part of the 1st respondent in accepting the offer of the 3rd respondent, because, admittedly the writ petitioner did not place his revised offer before the cut-off date i.e. on 4.6.2001, but gave letter only on 11.6.2001.

This takes us to the first contention of the learned counsel fort he appellant-writ petitioner. We find force in the said contention of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner. The copy of the Centrally Sponsored Scheme is not placed before us. However, in the original records placed before us by the learned Government Pleader at Note Nos. 61 and 62 of the proceedings sheet, the relevant stipulations in the Centrally Sponsored Scheme are extracted and set out. They read as follows :

Item No. 61: Government of India in their guidelines for distribution of Sprinkler Irrigation Units under Centrally Sponsored Schemes, it was clearly mentioned that "A list of registered Sprinkler System Manufacturers along with rates approved should be given to the Sarpanch along with units allotted. Selection of any of these registered Sprinkler is the choice of the farmer for getting installed in his land"

Item No. 62: It is further mentioned, " indent should be placed only on the approved (registered) Rate Contract firms, as communicated by the Commissioner and Director of Agriculture. It is also stated that selection of firms should be strictly as per the choice of farmer guided by the concerned Gram Panchayat/MPP.

From the perusal of the above stipulations incorporated in the Centrally Sponsored Scheme, it is quite clear that the 1st respondent ought to have prepared a list of applicants for the purpose of registering them as Sprinkler System Manufacturers and would have forwarded the said list to the concerned Field officer. It is quite apparent from the scheme as set out in the above paragraphs, that it is for the concerned Field Officer to place the indents. The scheme also makes it very clear that the Government of India did not intend to create any monopoly in the matter of supply of Sprinkling Systems Sets. On the other hand, the clear intendment of the scheme is to allow competition and offer wide choice for the Field Officers to place indents according to their needs and requirement. This position is also reflected in the Tender notification issued by the 1st respondent.

Although we hold that the impugned action of the 1st respondent is illegal and in contravention of the scheme, in our considered opinion, we do not think it appropriate at this belated stage to set at naught the supply contract already entrusted to the 3rd respondent by the concerned Field Officer, because, the 1st respondent in his counter has stated that the contract awarded to the 3rd respondent would come to an by the end of March, 2002 and the correctness of this statement is not seriously contested by the writ petitioner. However, the 1st respondent cannot have any objection in law to enlist the writ petitioner also as a registered Sprinkler System Manufacturer under the scheme on the same terms and conditions subject to which, the 3rd respondent was registered as registered Sprinkler System manufacturer by the 1st respondent and by doing so, in our considered opinion, it would create a healthy competition between the equals and that will also provide an opportunity of choice to the concerned Field Officers in implementing the scheme which is intended for the welfare of the tribals.

In the result, we dispose of this Writ Appeal directing the 1st respondent to enlist the petitioner also as a registered Sprinkler System Manufacturer on the same terms and conditions subject to which the 3rd respondent is registered as Sprinkler Systems Manufacturer and subject to the appellant-writ petitioner complying with legal formalities, if any. This direction shall be complied with by the 1st respondent within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The order of the learned Single Judge accordingly stands modified. No order as to costs.