IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1904 of 2011 Deepak Kumar, S/o Sri Rameshwar Prasad Singh, R/o Village- Sihma, P.S.-Matihani, District-Begusarai. …….. Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through Secretary, Food & Civil Supplies Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. Bihar State Food & Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Sone Bhawan, 5th Floor, Birchand Patel Path, Patna-800001 through it’s Managing Director. 3. The Chief of Procurement, Bihar State Food & Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Khagaria. 4. The District Manager, Bihar State Food & Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Khagaria. 5. The Chairman-cum-District Magistrate, District Transport Committee, Bihar State Food & Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Khagaria. ……… Respondents. For the petitioner : Mr. Rajiv Kumar Verma, Sr. Advocate. Mr. Rajneesh, Advocate. For the Corporation : Mr. R.S.Pradhan, Sr. Advocate. Mr. A.N.Rai, Advocate. For the State : Mr. A. Kunal, A.C. to AAG- XIV. ----------- 5. 01.04.2011 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the respondents- Corporation. 2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner for setting aside the extra tender notice dated 02.12.2010 (Annexure-1) published in ‘the Hindustan’ daily newspaper for appointing of Extra Transporting & Handling Agent in the district of Khagaria, issued by the Managing Director of the Bihar State Food & Civil Supplies Corporation and for directing the said authority to appoint the petitioner as Extra Transporting & Handling Agent in the revenue district of Khagaria and for other ancillary reliefs as one such agent 2 was not sufficient for lifting of food grains for distribution to the below poverty line families. 3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was kept in the reserve panels of each year from 2008 to 2011, but was not appointed as such till 2010. However, it transpires that during the pendency of this writ petition, on 23.03.2011 (Annexure-C to the counter affidavit and Annexure-6 to the supplementary affidavit) Letter No. 2356 was issued by the Managing Director appointing the petitioner as an Additional Transporting & Handling Agent for the district of Khagaria in the year 2011. 4. In view of the aforesaid letter the main grievance of the petitioner has been redressed. However, the dispute continues with respect to the rate provided for the petitioner. It is an admitted fact that the rate, on which the petitioner was appointed as Extra Transporting & Handling Agent, was the rate which was prevalent in the year 2008 which is apparent from Annexure-1 to the writ petition. Subsequently there was a change in the rate, which is apparent from the notice inviting tender published in the newspaper on 02.12.2010 in which conditions were also mentioned. 5. The claim of the petitioner is that he had been in the reserve panel of 2008, 2009 and 2010 but he had not been appointed in those years and hence, the earlier rate was not applicable to him and now he has been for the first time appointed in the year 2011 vide Annexure-6 and hence the rate prevalent in the year 2011 should be applicable to his case also. 3 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that since the petitioner was appointed on the minimum rate as per his own offer, he cannot raise such dispute at this stage. He further states that for the first time the petitioner was empanelled in the year 2008 the same rate was prevalent on which he had been appointed now. He avers that another transporter is working on the same rate. He further avers that the fresh rate is for the persons for whom tenders have been invited and if selections are made they will be allowed to work on the fresh rate. He further submits that no transporter is working at present on the rate as indicated in the tender notice dated 02.12.2010 (Annexure-1). 7. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner places a document of the respondents themselves, namely legal opinion dated 31.12.2010 (Annexure-7) in which it was opined that there can be legally two rates prevalent in the same district for persons who have been working from before and for persons who had been appointed afresh. 8. Considering the entirety of the situations, it transpires that the main grievance of the petitioner with regard to his appointment as Extra Transporting & Handling Agent has been redressed. So far as the rate is concerned, although the petitioner has been appointed in March, 2011 but he has been appointed from the earlier panel. Furthermore, from the tender notice it is quite apparent that the fresh rate mentioned therein is applicable to the applicants 4 who have been invited afresh and whose applications etc. have not yet been finalized. In the said circumstances, the said rate cannot be legally made applicable in case of the petitioner and the petitioner if he so likes will have to continue on the rate on which he has been appointed vide letter dated 23.03.2011 (Annexure-6). 9. With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition is disposed of. Sujit (S.N.Hussain, J.)