/0%) h). WPIG‘ No.5348IZD1Q Petitianers 1. M/s. Rajkumar and Bmthe s, ihrouuh its Proprietor Sfo. Rajkumar Tiwari, Tribhuwan Prasad Tiwari, aged about 43 years, Rio. Sama! Bazar, Jagdaipur, district Bastar(C-G) 2. Mls. Dharamchandra Devendra Kumar Jain, through its Proprietor, Atui Kumar Jain, S/o. Devendra Kumar Jain, aged about 4‘6 vearsr R/o. Go!e Bazar, Jagdaipur, district I Bastar(CG) Vs” Re$gondents 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Home and Jaii Department; DKS Bhawan Raipur district Raipur (CG) 2i Director Genera! of Jai!, Raipur District Raipur (CG) 3. inspector General of JaiL Raipur, district Raipur (CG) 4. Superintendent of Jail, Central Jaii, Jagdaipur, District Bastar ice) AND W.P.(C) No.5526lzmo Petitioner Nils. Jet Mahamaya Generai Store, Fundurdihari, Dhobipara, Ambikapur, district Surguia (CG) through the Proprietor Neerai Kumar Verma Son of Shri Dinesh Kuamar \Jerma, aged about 25 of years, Resident Fundiirdihari, Dhobipara, Amoikapur,‘ district surguja (CG) 1.. $tate of Chhattisgarh, thmugh Respendents Secretary, Home Department, DKS Bhawan Raipur district Raipur (CG; The Director Genera! of JaiL Raipur Bistrict Raipur (CG) The mspector Genera! of JaiL Raipur, district Raipur (CG) 4A The Superintendent of JaEE, Centrai Jaii. Ambikapur, Dist.ict $urgujaiCG) 10 OD Present: Shri Manoj Paranjpe, counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C.)No.5347/1O and 5348/10. Shri VK Pandey nnLinsei for the petitioner in \.I\!.P.(C) No.5526/1 0. u'NS Dee, Govt. Ad.ocafe for the State, ,-- nu-. ' OH! QRALQRDER. (1 5.02.201 1) 1. The above .entioned writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order as common question of iaw and facts are invoived in these petitione. Brietiy stated facts, as puieoted by th pe.itioners are that in k) 'D( response to Notice inviting Ten er doted 18‘“ March,2G1 G (Annexure— C). P/10\ the netitioners submitted their offers for suppiy of food and Ii I' other commodities for the financial year 9010—201. t. The offers of the petitioners, being iowest were accepted by Members of the Purchase Committee and information regarding the same was sent to them Vide Annxnms—P/tt to P!15. in pursuance of acoepanoe of their offer, the petitioners oompteted necessary formaiities and aiso deposited 10% f approximate purchase amount ,in the shape of FDR. An agreement under Rule to-B of the Chhattisgarh Jaii $oppiies Rules, / . (3J (mp 1.968 (hereinafter ‘The Ru!es 1968’) was execute». by the petitioners, thereafte., work erders were issued t0 the petitioners and the petitioners commenced supply of goods in accordance with terms and conditions of the agreement They aiso receiied euppiv order for the month of September, 2010 issued by Superintendent of Jai' Jagdaipur. However, vide order dated 0mm 7010 (Annexure-P/A.) l Superintendent of Jaii, canceiied the tenders and work orders of the A+Hi euuoners in pursuance of order Auated i. 4am w June,2t}10 and t. e 'U decision taken by respondent .No.‘ I 4 dated .r 5 th dune, i 201 G. Shri Mano; Paranipe and -hri V.K. Pandey, teamed counsel for the petitioners, vehemently argued that from bare perusai of the order of concerned Minister dated 2G‘h April, 2010, it woutd be evident that the decision to canoe! the tenders has been taken only on the ground that thn 13 Purchase Rules, 2902, though the te.ders were issued under the Rule 1968. The petitioners have already deposited earnest money as well as security amount in accordance with the Ruies 1963. in View of the fac. that the agreeme.t has been executed between the parties and the petitioners have commenced suppiies in compliance of supply order issued by Superintendent of Jail, and the parties have entered into an agreement, the same cannot be unilaterally rescinded, that too, on the ground that purchase orders have been .ssued contrary to the Chhattisgarh Store Purchase Rule-, though according to the respondents’ own case, purchases were made under ,r the R Ile 958. 1 um“! urchase order ha- been issued in violation of Chhattisgarh Store w .uur. mu“ “a. wuuuv. an ”sues“ n 4. On the other hand, Shri LIN-S Dee, !eamed Gcvt. Advocate, weuld argue that tenders of the petitioners were accepted in anticipation of the approval ct Jai! Headquarters. The agreemen. of Annxuree-PH 9- 21 ie temporary tii! the appreva! is renamed from inspector Genera! of Jaii. Since the Director Genera! of Jail has finaiiy canceited the entire tender process, as per poiicy decision of the State Government, by exercisinn nowJ conferred under Ciause 14 of the conditions of the d l' Notice inviting Tender, the etitioners did not have any iega! enforceabie right to chaiienge the action of the resnondents The instant pe.ition is not maintainabie as there is no infringement of fundamentai rights of the petitioner and the petitioner can institoe a civil suit before the Court of competent iurisdiction for violation of their contractual rights if any. Writ petitions of sirniiar nature have already been dismissed by this Court vide Annxure—Rf3 and the subject matter in present vvrit petitions are identicai. Heard iearned counsel for the parties. Perused the record. indisputabiy, the purchase proceedings vvere commenced by Jaii Authorities under the Rule 1963. The petitioners‘ offers being lovvest were accepted by Superintendent of Jail, thereafter, Superintendent of Jail proceeded under Rule 10 of the Ruies. The agreement executed by the petitioners in Form—A under Rule ‘lO—B was forwarded to inspector General of Jail for his approval. in the meanwhile, supply ordJs were also issued to the petitioners, who made supplies I i- till 4st . septem e bet, 2010. At this juncture, l- l-the l" uirecto (a u€llciaiy “A l gait, i Vide l.”is OFUEV A dated ’31 st AUgU3t, a. nnan LUHJ AuiV€Ci“d t0 ensure that the entire tender process is cancelled as per decision 1' \ ML) dateu .. ,4 5 th June 201$ by &Lhe Heme Department a of I-‘he State Gevemment.) m pursuance 0f the dectstcn dated 10*“ Aprit, 201 of the Home Ministet. From peruse! of Rule 10 0f the Ru!es 1968, it is clear that the Jai! Superintendent is required to submit his propose! for purchase to !nspector Genera! of JeiL aiong with documents mentioned in the RI !e. Under Ruie iD-B duiy fiHed agreement hv the tenderer with date is eiso to be forwarded to the !nepentor Genera! of Jai! On receipt of the propose! aiohg with documents inoiuding the egreernent evennted by tenderer from Jei! superintendent, t inspector Genera! of Je“ is empowered to either acoep. or reject the O w. tender within two monthe frnrn the date of reoeiot of the nropoee the Jai! Superintendent '7 indienntabiy, the nropoee! of the Jai! Superintendent was suhieet t approxei of Jet! Headquarter and the tenders have been oance!!e Q. etitinne of other suppiiers hat/e been dismissed by this Court vide order IAnnvnre-Rl3) da.ed 10.09.9010 with an observation that in the absence of any e eoifio approve! from the authorities mentioned in the NIT and the Ruies 1968, the petitioners have no right to chaiienge the order passed by Director Genera! of Prison, as per orders of the State Government, canoeiing . mum g... .4] .- y unna- u «v. ”v. Av...“ m \w..~.y.v. VI... g” e. .... u. n. .1 u .v mu. v... t- t. u ' v. r. ‘ . . r.“ v I... un- O u. \. u .. u“. . ... V . myn.’ the ternders‘. he instant case aiso, there is nothing on reoor- to demonstrate pa ... that the propose! of the Jai! Superintendent was accepted by inspector Genera! of Jai! and therefore, we are of the opinion that the petitioners have no iega! rinht to ohaitenge the order canoeiing their \\ tenders passed by Director Genera! of Jai! as per the orders of the _ Sd/- > Dhirendra Mishra' ( Jge L ud [N ......... . . _ 7 Stag Gevemment. We are not incHned t0 interfere with th- orders passed by the Director Genera! of Jail, directing ail the Jaii the tender process initiated for $uperintendents of the $tate te scrap process purchase of food grains and other artieies fer the prisenere. .Aceouingiv . ,,.the netitinnc t. . w.~s.-w are dismissed -. i/ /s::’/ M