Sree Vigneswara Packs, a Partnership vs Travancore Devaswom Board and The Executive Officer

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.—This writ petition is filed on 10.8.2010 challenging the decisions reflected by Exts.P4 and P7 resulting in the blacklisting of the petitioner from supply of containers for packing Aravana in Sabarimala for three consecutive years. Ext.P7 is issued making reference to Ext.P4. Adverting to that, it can be seen that Ext.P4 was issued with reference to a legal opinion that the loss, if any, sustained on account of short supply of cans during the previous year could be adjusted from the security deposit or from the bank guarantee after giving written notice to the petitioner. Indisputably, the petitioner was not given any further notice on the basis of Ext.P4 before issuance of Ext.P7. Nor was his explanation called for before the impugned blacklisting.

When this writ petition came up for admission, this Court issued an interim order on 12.8.2010 to the effect that it is not advisable for the Board to depend on one or two contractors only for supply of cans for packing Aravana. It was accordingly directed that the Board will receive the tender of the petitioner also and process it and file a report. Following that, the Purchase Committee considered the offers and placed on record the report which was considered by us on 7th September, 2010. On 8th September, 2010, orders were issued to finalise the tentative apportionment among the four suppliers already identified. We also directed that the petitioner be heard by the Board and decision be taken tentatively. Thereupon, the Board further went into the matter and has placed its views. The Board has also filed an additional statement through its Secretary. The Board has tentatively decided that supply orders be given to the four suppliers identified earlier, i.e., M/s. Creative Pack, M/s. Jothis Cones, M/s. Moti Packaging Industries and M/s. Moti Adhesives and that the remaining 15 lakhs cans be awarded to the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 3.10 per can in terms of further directions of this Court.

As already noticed, the impugned decision to blacklist the petitioner is rendered on the sole premise that there was short supply of cans during the previous year. As noted in our earlier orders, the fact of the matter remains that the Aravana Processing Unit was itself set up with the expertise of the petitioner. It then happened that the staff of the Board could not by themselves run the said unit and it required the assistance of the employees of the petitioner. Their services were, therefore, diverted for the purpose of the Aravana Processing Unit. This is one of the pivotal reasons projected by the petitioner for any short fall in the supply of cans during the previous year. The impugned decisions Exts.P4 and P7 do not reflect any ground other than the short supply. In fact, even going by the opinion that the Board got, the suggestion was that there could be recovery of loss, if any, sustained by making appropriate deductions from the security deposit or bank guarantee, that too, after appropriate notice and hearing being extended to the petitioner. We are clear in our mind that there was really no ground at all for blacklisting the petitioner and refusing to accept tenders regarding the supply of cans for this year also. We may at once notice that even for the current year, the petitioner is engaged for the purpose of assisting in the manufacture and packing of Aravana in the plant noted above.

Having regard to the various contents of the different statements and the reports, including that of the Purchase Committee and the views of the Board, we are inclined to think that the petitioner could be granted the opportunity to supply 15 lakhs of cans at the rate of Rs. 3.10 per can, however, on condition that the payment for such supply would be made only after the entire supply is effected. This condition is imposed on the basis of the offer made by the petitioner through its learned Counsel in open court that it would supply the entire quantity and would only then take the payment.

In the result, quashing the impugned Ext.P4 and Ext.P7, we order as above as regards the allotment of the work of supply of the quantity of 15 lakhs of cans to the petitioner. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs.