W.P. No. 47 of 2009. Case: Lalthai and Ors. Vs State of Mizoram and Anr.. Guwahati High Court
| Case Number | W.P. No. 47 of 2009 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: M. Zothankhuma, R. Laltanpuia, S. Vanlahriata, R. Lalrinchhami, Joel J. Denga, P.C. Prusty and H. Lalremsanga, Advs. And For Respondents: N. Sailo, Addl. A.G. and M. Zothankhuma, Adv. |
| Judges | H. Baruah, J. |
| Issue | Constitution of India - Articles 14, 19, 21 and 226 |
| Citation | AIR 2010 Gau 108, (2010) 2 GLR 652, 2010 (2) GLT 85 |
| Judgement Date | November 27, 2009 |
| Court | Guwahati High Court |
Order:
H. Baruah, J.
-
Both the writ petitions being inter connected with each other were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.
-
In Writ Petition No. 47 of 2009, petitioners have challenged the notification dated 5-6-2009 issued by respondent No. 1 vide memo No. S-1 1014/1/2009-FCS & CA (An-nexure-12) and NIT dated 9-6-2009 issued by respondent No. 1 vide memo No. S-1 1014/ 1/1009-FCS and CA dated 5-6-2009 (Annex-ure-13) while the writ petitioner in W.P.(c) No. 71 of 2009 has sought for setting aside and quashment of the impugned notification No. 11014/1/2006-FCS-CA dated 18-7-2008 issued by respondent No. 1 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) and corrigendum No. D-99011/3/2008/DTE (SPY) GEN dated 1-10-2008 by the Respondent No. 2 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition) by which term of appointment as carrying contractors had been extended.
-
W.P. (c) No. 47 of 2009:
Respondent No. 2, the Director, Food and Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department, Aizawl issued a Notice Inviting Tender (for short NIT) dated 15-2-2006 (Annexure-1) inviting tenders from interested persons /firms to carry foodstuff on various main routes originating from Kolasib, and Tanhril during the calendar year 2006. Pursuant to the NIT as indicated above all the petitioners herein submitted their tenders and the petitioners having been found qualified, respondent No. 2 appointed them as carrying contractors for the calendar year 2006 in the main routes as indicated in the appointment order dated 20-7-2006 (Annexure-4). Per Clause 15 of the terms and conditions of the NIT, petitioners executed agreement with the respondent No. 1 as carrying contractors for transportation of foodstuff including loading and unloading and stocking from the godown to their place of destination. While the petitioners were executing the works as carrying contractors for the year 2006, the term was extended up to 31-11-2007 or until further order vide order dated 11-12-2006 issued by respondent No. 2 (Annexure-5). Such extension was approved on the basis of a letter of under Secretary, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs dated 1-10-2007 till 31-3-2009 and accordingly respondent No. 2 by another letter dated 1-10-2007 extended the term of the petitioners as carrying contractors for the main routes up to 31-3-2009 (Annexures-6 & 7). Respondent No. 1 vide notification dated 18-7-2008 (Annexure-8) further extended the term of the petitioners as carrying contractors up to 31-3-2011 in the main routes. In the meantime, respondent No. 1 issued another NIT dated 21-7-2008 inviting tenders from interested persons/firms to carry foodstuff in respect of the main routes starting from Bualpui FSD during the calendar year 2008. The petitioners having fulfilled all the terms and conditions pursuant to the NIT, were appointed as carrying contractors for the calendar year 2008 as against the routes shown in the appointment order dated 26-9-2008 (Annexures-9 & 10). Corrigendum dated 1-10-2008 was issued by the respondent No. 2 in respect of order dated 26-9-2008 wherein it has been indicated that "Calendar year 2008" be read as "up to 31st December, 2009". As per appointment orders and other orders issued by the respondents the petitioners have been carrying foodstuff to the satisfaction of the department concerned. For the purpose of execution of the works petitioners have invested a lot of money and machineries including vehicles. However, vide notification dated 5-6-2009 (Annexure-12) in super session of notification No. S-11014/1/06-FCS & CA dated 18-7-2008 and corrigendum issued under letter No. D.99011/3/2008/DTE/SPY/(Gen) dated 1-10-2008 the extended term of carrying contractors under the main routes have been shortened and extended up to 31-8-2009 or till process of notice inviting tender for carrying of foodstuff under all main routes is completed whichever is earlier and accordingly issued NIT dated 9-6-2009 inviting tenders from the interested persons, bona fide citizens of India/ reputed firms to carry foodstuff in respect of main routes originating from Kolasib, Tanhril and Bualpui indicating 3-7-2009 as last date of submitting tender (Annexure-13).
-
It is contended that respondents before issuing notification dated 5-6-2009 (Annex-ure-12) and issuing NIT dated 9-6-2009 (Annexure-13) did never issue any show cause notice to the petitioners why action as indicated in notification dated 5-6-2009 (Annex-ure-12) and NIT dated 9-6-200,9 (Annexure-13) should not be resorted to. It is contended that by issuing the notification and the NIT the respondents violated the principle of natural justice. The term has been shortened by the impugned notification without any just cause, the action on the part of the respondent is arbitrary in nature which cannot receive sanction of law. It is also contended that due to extension of their terms as carrying contractors the petitioners had taken loans from the banks for smooth execution of the work and had purchased the vehicles for transportation of the foodstuff. On account of shortening of the term it is contended that the petitioners will suffer irreparable loss and injuries. Moreover, for the execution of the works the petitioners have employed man power like Manager, Drivers, handyman etc. The petitioners were appointed as carrying contractors on fulfilling terms and conditions of the NIT, but the NIT impugned herein being not contained such condition a step has been created for adopting pick and choose policy in appointing such carrying contractors. It is also contended that the doctrine of promissory estoppel would come into play against the respondents since they cannot be allowed to take away the right of the petitioners in an illegal and arbitrary manner. The extension of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
W.P. No. 22556 (W) of 2010 with W.P. No. 20591 (W) of 2010. Case: Rafik Miya Vs State of West Bengal. High Court of Calcutta (India)
...dated 14th September, 2010 and subsequent tender notice as bad and liable to be quashed. Reliance is placed on AIR 2010 SC 2794 and AIR 2010 Gau 108. Counsel for the respondent-authorities submits that the agreement between the parties is in the realm of a contract and in view of section 14......
-
W.P. No. 22556 (W) of 2010 with W.P. No. 20591 (W) of 2010. Case: Rafik Miya Vs State of West Bengal. High Court of Calcutta (India)
...dated 14th September, 2010 and subsequent tender notice as bad and liable to be quashed. Reliance is placed on AIR 2010 SC 2794 and AIR 2010 Gau 108. Counsel for the respondent-authorities submits that the agreement between the parties is in the realm of a contract and in view of section 14......