WP(C) 2236/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.P.KATAKEY Heard Mr DR Gogoi, learned counsel for petitioner. Also, heard Mr BJ Tal ukdar, learned state counsel appearing for the respondents. The petitioner, by this petition, has challenged the notice inviting ten der(NIT) dated 9th April 2011 issued by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Dibrug arh, inviting bids from the intending suppliers for supply of dietary and other articles mentioned as group A, B, C, D, E etc to the jail as per the requirement s specified at the schedule to NIT for the financial year 2011-2012(ending on 31 .3.2012), contending inter alia that though the earlier NIT dated 15th February 2010 was issued by the said authority for supply of dietary and other articles m entioned as group A, B, C, D, E etc for the financial year 2010-2011(ending on 3 1.3.2011), order of settlement was issued in his favour only on 28.1.2011 for su pply of dietary and other articles mentioned as group B, C & G, of which he had accepted the offer against group B & C, and though the security money for the wh ole period was taken on 14.2.2011, he has not been able to reap the benefit of s uch settlement for whole period that is the financial year 2010-2011(ending on 3 1.3.2011), due to late settlement pursuant to the aforesaid NIT dated 15th Febru ary 2010. It is also the contention of petitioner that the authority namely the Superintendent of central jail, Dibrugarh, vide communication dated 1st April 20 10, had allowed him to continue to supply dietary and other articles at the exis ting approved rate with effect from 1.4.2011 so he should be allowed to continue during the financial year 2011-2012(ending on 31.3.2012) also. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the backdrop of such assertion, h as submitted that since security money for whole financial year 2010-11 was take n on 14.2.2011 and the petitioner had been allowed to continue the supply vide o rder dated 1st April 2011, he should be allowed to continue for the next financi al year also, that is 2011-2012(ending on 31.3.2012). Learned counsel, therefore , submits that the NIT dated 9th April 2011 issued by the authority needs to be interfered with. In the alternative it has been submitted that the security mone y which was deposited pursuant to previous NIT dated 15th February 2010 may be d irected to be refunded. Learned state counsel, on the basis of the instruction received from the Inspector General(Prisons), Assam, has submitted that the earlier order of sett lement was issued in favour of petitioner pursuant to the NIT dated 15.2.2010 fo r the financial year 2010-2011(ending on 31.3.20110) and an agreement to that ef fect was also executed between the parties, the period of which having been over a fresh process was initiated by the fresh NIT dated 9th April 2011. It has als o been submitted that by the order dated 1st April 2011 the petitioner was allow ed to supply the dietary and other articles in pursuance of the earlier settleme nt made in his favour as a stop-gap arrangement till the fresh process for the n ext financial year, that is 2011-2012, was complete. Learned state counsel has f airly submitted that the security money, if deposited by the petitioner, and if found to be refundable, it would definitely be refunded to him. It appears from NIT dated 15th February 2010 that it was issued for supp ly of dietary and other articles for the financial year 2010-2010(ending on 31.3 .2011). An order thereafter was issued in favour of petitioner in respect of the group B, C & G, on 28.1.2011, though belatedly. An agreement was thereafter exe cuted between the parties ~ petitioner on one part, and the Governor of Assam on the other ~ for supply of dietary and other articles in pursuance of the tender process initiated for the financial year 2010-2011(ending on 31.3.201). Petitio ner, however, after expiry of the contracted period, had been allowed to supply said articles as a stop-gap arrangement by the order dated 1st April 2011 till t he settlement for the next financial year, that is 2011-2012, was finalized, whi ch is evident from the order. The petitioner having been settled with tender for supply of dietary and other articles against the said groups for the period end ing 31.3.2011, he cannot claim that he should also be allowed to supply such art icles for the next financial year, by virtue of his depositing the security mone y pursuant to the earlier tender process initiated vide NIT dated 15th February 2010 and the subsequent order dated 1st April 2011 passed by the Superintendent of central jail, Dibrugarh, making the temporary arrangement for supply of dieta ry and other articles. The impugned NIT dated 9th April 2011 being for the next financial year, that is 2011-2012(ending on 31.3.2012), and settlement made in f avour of the petitioner being pursuant to the earlier tender process that is for the financial year 2010-2011, the petitioner cannot claim that he should be all owed to supply the said items for the next financial year ending 31.3.2012. In view of above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the NIT dat ed 9th April 2011. It is, however, made clear that if any security money deposit ed by the petitioner is found to be refundable pursuant to the agreement arrived at between the parties for the financial year 2010-2011 (ending on 31.3.201), t he authority shall pass necessary order in that regard. With the above observation the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.