IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5576 of 2007 M/S BHARAT BOOK DEPOT Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 02. 15.02.2010 Vide a decision taken by the respondent authorities on 10.2.2006 petitioner was awarded order for supply of certain books vide supply order dated 14.2.2006. Petitioner was directed to supply the approved books for distribution to various schools within one month from the said order. Petitioner had failed to effect supplies within the time frame. For many a reasons a prayer for extending the time was made. Respondents were indulgent and vide annexure 10 based on the representation of the petitioner, that most of the books are readily available except one or two and he is in a position to supply, he was asked to do so immediately. But when supplies were effect the order dated 23.3.2006 came to be passed which is the subject matter of challenge in the writ application. Yet another order dated 27.5.2006 is also under challenge which is annexure-2 to the writ application. The preliminary submission of the petitioner is that when the respondents had granted him time or extended the time for supplies on 22nd March, 2006 then cancellation order passed on the very next day i.e. on 23rd is arbitrary and for extraneous reasons. Petitioner had effected certain supplies but due to logistics of distances 2 and procurement there was delay and that should have been condoned. Stand of the respondents is that these books were to be supplied to various schools of the area from the discretionary funds released in favour of the Member of Legislative Council and the supplies had to be effected within the financial year for full utilization of the allocation. There was clear stipulation in the order that the supplies will be effected within one month of the order dated 14.2.2006. From the correspondences and pleadings made in the writ application the petitioner had failed to do so even till 23.2.2006. Since there was no indication that the petitioner would make supply within the financial year, the authorities on a complaint made by the concerned MLC cancelled the supply order and settled the same with yet another person who was in a position to effect the supplies. All these transactions were carried out in the year 2006. Though there is assertion by the petitioner that he had made some supplies to some schools and to that extent he should be made payments for those supplies but the court has difficulty in passing an order in favour of the petitioner on the ground that if any supply was made by him after the order of cancellation contained in annexure 1, he did so at his own risk and breach of a 3 decision which has already been taken against him. If the order dated 23.3.2006 had already been issued then the petitioner should have restrained himself from making any supply to any institute. Annexure-2 also indicates that in case petitioner had made any supply he was free to recover or redeem those books from those schools but there is no question of making any payment whatsoever for the said supplies, once cancellation order and re-allotment of work are there. The writ application has no merit. It is dismissed. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J )