B.P.DAS, J & S.PANDA, J. W.P.(C) NO.11478 OF 2010 (Decided on28.9.2010) BHARATI MOHAPATRA ……….. Petitioner. .Vrs. COLLECTOR & DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BALASORE & ORS. ………... Opp.Parties. CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 – ART.226. For Petitioner - M/s. Dipak Kumar Dey, C.K.Dey, A.K.Das. For Opp.Parties – Addl. Govt. Advocate (for O.Ps. 1 & 2) M/s.Bikram Pratap Das, S.R.Pati & S.K.Mishra. (for O.P.3) B. P. DAS J. The petitioner has come up before this Court challenging the legality of the decision of O.P.1-Collector and District Magistrate, Balasore in appointing opposite party no.3 as Transporting Agent under Mid-Day-Meal Programme in respect of Soro Block under Balasore District for the financial year 2010-11 pursuant to Tender Call Notice under Annexure-1, communicated by O.P.2-District Social Welfare Officer, Balasore in his letter No.1541 (6)/SW dated 22.06.2010 vide Annexure-3. 2. According to the petitioner, pursuant to the Tender Call Notice dated 28.5.2010 issued by the Collector for engagement of transporting agent in Block Level for transportation of food stuffs under the Mid-Day-Meal Programme for different Blocks in Balasore District for the year 2010-11, vide Annexure-1, the petitioner submitted her tender with all required documents for Soro Block quoting the rate of transportation a Rs.10.00 per quintal. 3. It is an admitted fact that the rate quoted by the petitioner was the lowest rate and the rate quoted by opposite party no.3, which was Rs.13.30 more than the rate quoted by the petitioner, was accepted by opposite parties 1 and 2. 4. In response to the allegations made in this writ petition by the petitioner and the ground on which the challenge has been made to the decision taken by the Collector in awarding the transporting agency in favour of opposite party no.3, a preliminary counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite party no.1. 5. In Paragraph-4 of the said Counter Affidavit, opposite party no.1 referring to the order passed in W.P.(C) No. 9286 of 2010 has stated thus:- “It is respectfully submitted that this Hon’ble Court while deciding W.P.(C) No. 9286/2010 vide order dated 22.5.2010 have directed that the Collector while examining the tenders shall find out the workability of the rates quoted by the tenders and preference will be given who have quoted workable rate in their tender form. Pursuant to the order passed by this Hon’ble Court a committee was constituted under the Chairmanship of Additional District Magistrate, Balasore and the District Social Welfare Officer, Balasore, Civil Supplies Officer, Balasore, Chief District Medical Officer, Balasore were the members of the Committee.” 6. This Court, while deciding W.P.(C) No. 9286 of 2010, on 22.5.2010 has passed the following order:- “Heard Shri A.A. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the State. Prayer in the writ petition is for a direction to the Collector-opposite party no.2 to take a decision on the tenders submitted pursuant to the Tender Call Notice Annexure-1. This Court in W.P.(C) No. 8154 of 2010 has already directed the Collector and District Magistrate, Balasore to take a decision as expeditiously as possible. Therefore, there is no need in giving similar direction in this case. It goes without saying that the Collector while examining the tenders shall find out the workability of the rates quoted by the tenders. This order be carried out if no decision has been taken in the meantime.” 7. The petitioner has also filed a rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed by opposite party no.1. It is stated in the rejoinder affidavit and as contended by learned counsel for the petitioner, the order passed by this Court on 22.5.2010 has not been complied with in regard to the direction for finding out a workable rate inasmuch as the rate which has been accepted, i.e. Rs.13.30, is not the workable rate and the said rate is higher than the prevailing rate. On the garb of taking the decision in the light of the direction issued by this Court, opposite parties 1 and 2 have shown favour to certain transporting agents by accepting their tenders at a rate, which is much higher than the workable rate, and have given them undue benefit. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws our attention to the fact that the Mid Day Meal Programme is continuing throughout the State, but tender notices floated for engagement of transporting agents in different districts are different and in this regard, the petitioner has cited the tender notice issued in respect of Gajapati district. 9. As to the stand taken by the State that if the lowest rate offered by the petitioner is approved/ accepted, it will lead to corruption and pilferage of food stuffs that are to be transported by the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said stand is not tenable as the petitioner has given high security to the tune of Rs.5.00 lakhs as required under the tender notice and the opposite parties can make good the loss if any made by the petitioner by forfeiting the amount deposited by the petitioner. 10. In the order of this Court dated 22.5.2010, as quoted above, it has been clearly directed to find out the workability of the rates quoted by the tenderers, but in this case, we find that the opposite parties have come up absolutely with a new rate, which was not quoted by anyone. 11. ‘Workable’ as per ‘Stroud’s Dictionary’ means fairly workable and not at a dead loss or high profit out of it; that means the work in most proper and effective manner. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this problem has not only been cropped up in Balasore district, but similar disputes have also been raised in other 2 districts of the State as no uniformity has been maintained in the rate of transportation of food stuffs from Blocks to the school points. 13. In our considered opinion, a uniform policy should be evolved for fixation of rates of transportation charges by the opposite parties so that a uniform rate shall prevail throughout the State. 14. Accordingly we direct the Revenue Divisional Commissioner (Central Division), Cuttack to constitute a committee consisting of persons/officials having expertise and knowledge in the field to lay down uniform policy for fixation of workable rate for transportation of the food stuffs under the Mid-Day-Meal Programme, which shall be adhered to by all the Collectors in the State and shall be incorporated in the tender notice floated for the purpose. 15. The Committee headed by the Revenue Divisional Commissioner (Central Division) is given liberty to examine the case of the petitioner and whether the rate offered by the petitioner is workable. 16. The Report of the Committee shall be binding on all the Collectors in the State. The Committee shall take the decision by end of November, 2010. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Writ petition disposed of. 3