1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR O R D E R 1. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4627 of 2009. Netrapal Singh son of Shri Angad Singh VERSUS State of Rajasthan and Others 2. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5310 of 2009. Dholpur Mahila Prathmik Sahkari Upbhokta Bhandar Ltd. VERSUS State of Rajasthan and Others 3. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5911 of 2009. Badi Sahkari Upbhokta Bhandar Ltd., Dholpur VERSUS State of Rajasthan and Others Date of Order ::: 22/05/2009. Hon'ble Mr. Mohammad Rafiq, J. Mr. Ravi Chirania } Mr. Mukesh Kumar Meena } Mr. Satish Khandelwal } Counsel for the Petitioners Mr. Aslam Khan } Mr. Pradeep Kalwania } Additional Govt. Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Moha Lal Goyal } Counsel for the Respondent No.4-Society By the Court : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2 All these writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners against the impugned award of the work. It is an award of the work of handling and transportation of the food grains and other essential commodities tributed under the Public Distribution System through Fair Price Shop. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the District Collector (Supply) Dholpur in the meeting held on 06.04.2009 took a decision to allot the work to the respondent-Government-Co- operative Societies for the time being for the reason that due to enforcement of model code of conduct during Parliamentary election, the private handling agents could not be appointed. It is contended by learned counsel that once the model code of conduct goes, the respondents ought to have invited tenders and to award the contract to the private agents as was being done in the previous years. Learned counsel for the petitioners referred to Clause 3 of the Government Circular dated 21.09.2004 and argued that according to said guidelines, respondents were required to issue tender in advance and the process was to be began in first week of March of 3 financial year so that the formalities regarding award of contract could be completed before 31st March of financial year. Respondents did not invite any tender and straightway awarded the contract to the respondents i.e. the Co-operative Societies namely; Dholpur Kraya Vikraya Sahkari Samiti, Dholpur and Badi Kraya Vikraya Sahkari Samiti, Badi, Dholpur. It is further contended by learned counsel that the respondents were required to obtain competitive rates and if the petitioners were ready and willing to give better rates, in that case, they have the right to complete for award of the work. Learned counsel submitted that in the past, number of irregularities were committed by Kraya Vikraya Co-operative Society of Dholpur so much so that even a criminal case at the instance of the District Food & Supply Officer, Dholpur and F.I.R. was registered against it. According to Clause 8 of the said guidelines, such irregularities was sufficient reason for not awarding the work to the said Co-operative Society, therefore, the respondents be directed to invite tenders permitting the petitioners to bid for work continuously and although interested to participate in the process for award of such 4 work. Learned Additional Government Counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 -private Co-operative Societies opposed these writ petitions and submitted that the contract was awarded to Government Co-operative Societies because the Government holds their majority of the share holding i.e. 51%, of the Co-operative Society and this is the policy of the Government to give priority to such co-operative societies. Learned counsel referred to Clauses 3 to 11 of the Guidelines issued by the Government of Rajasthan dated 21.09.2004 and argued that the District Administration could invite the tenders only, if the Government Societies were not prepared to undertake the work of distribution and handling of the food grains. Learned counsel submitted that even in Para 3, which is relied upon by the petitioner, it is clearly stated that the process for inviting tender can be initiated, only if the Government Co-operative Societies gave their letter of refusal in writing. The Government, Co-operative Societies, herein are ready and willing to take the work of handling and distribution. 5 Learned counsel submitted that in any case the writ petition is not maintainable against the decision of the District Food & Supply Officer, Dholpur the petitioners have alternative remedy of as per Clause 22 of the Rajasthan Foodgrains and Other Essential Articles (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1976 by way of appeal and under Clause 22-A, revision petition. So far as the criminal case is concerned, learned counsel argued that in registration of F.I.R. at the instance of D.S.O. against the Dholpur Kraya Vikraya Sahkari Samiti, Dholpur was result of confusion and ultimately, the Police did not file any challan in that F.I.R. and the matter was finally decided in favour of the Co- operative Society by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dholpur vide its order dated 13.12.2004, who reversed order of the District Collector (Supplies) Dholpur dated 26.07.2005. It was argued by learned counsel that even the Additional Sessions Judge, Dholpur remanded the matter back to the District Collector (Supplies) to pass afresh order. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering arguments of both the sides, I find that the policy of the Government dated 6 21.09.2004 for award of work of handling and distribution to the private agents dependent on the fulfillment of condition that the Government Co-operative Societies have in writing refused to carry out such work. In the present matter, the Government Co-operative Societies have not refused to carry out the work, but are rather willing to do the same. In the proceedings on 06.04.2009, although, it is mentioned that the work could not be awarded to the private handling agents due to model code of conduct, but at the same time, the District Food & Supply Officer has relied upon the Government circular dated 21.09.2004. This is indeed the policy decision of the respondents to give preference to the Government Co- operative Societies. Whether such policy was rightly applied to the present case, this argument could not be agitated before the Food Commissioner, because this policy was laid down in the circular dated 21.09.2004 issued by the Government. The remedy of appeal before the District Collector, therefore, would not be effective remedy because the District Collector, even otherwise, would be bound by the said policy circular. 7 The petitioner is, therefore, set at liberty to file an appeal before the Food Commissioner and all the aforementioned arguments, including the argument with regard to the alleged irregularities committed by the Dholpur Kraya Vikraya Sahkari Samiti, Dholpur, shall be examined by the Food Commissioner. Nothing is, therefore, observed about the correctness and otherwise of the policy decision as it is ultimately for the Food Commissioner to decide, as to whether or not to deviate from such policy in so far as District Dholpur is concerned. Consequently, these writ petitions are disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to file an appeal before the Food Commissioner within 15-days from today and the Food Commissioner is directed to decide such appeal within a period of 30-days from the date of their presentation before him after providing opportunity of hearing to all concerned. Writ petitions are disposed of in the manner as indicated above, without any order as to costs. A copy of this order be placed in the aforesaid petitions. (Mohammad Raifq) J. ashok/ 8 Certificate - All corrections have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed. Ashok Kumar Songara/P.A.cum J.W.