WP(C) 4015/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. R.P. Sarmah, learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner as well as Mrs. Phukan, learned State counsel appearing for the respondents. The petitioner by the present petition has prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities to accept the recommendation of the Purchase Committee d ated 06.01.2011, whereby and whereunder the Purchase Committee recommended procu rement of 2(two) items of sports goods, namely, Football and Volleyball from the petitioner at the rate fixed for the year 2008-09. It is the contention of the petitioner that in the year 2008-09 the peti tioner was empanelled and the rate offered was approved by the Purchase Committe e as well as by the competent authority for supply of those sports goods, namely , Football and Volleyball and thereafter for the year 2011-12 the petitioner was asked to convey his willingness to supply those sports goods at the rate as fix ed by the Purchase Committee for the year 2008-09 and consequently though the pe titioner expressed his willingness, and the Purchase Committee in the proceeding dated 06.01.2011 recommended for procurement of aforesaid sports goods from the petitioner’s firm, the respondent authority, however, without any reason did no t accept the recommendation of the Purchase Committee and instead contemplating to place order for supply of said sports goods to other firms. The petitioner, t herefore, has prayed for the aforesaid direction. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondent No.1, t he reason for non-acceptance of the recommendation of the Purchase Committee dat ed 06.01.2011 has been cited. It appears that only the petitioner’s firm was ask ed to express its willingness to supply the aforesaid sports goods and no other firms. That being the position the High Power Committee in its proceeding dated 16.07.2011 did not accept the recommendation of the Purchase Committee and decid ed to float tender for purchase of Football and Volleyball from the reputed manu facturers approved by the National Football and Volleyball Federation, as was do ne in the year 2010-11. It is evident from the averments made in the writ petition as well as in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No.1 that the negotiation w as so done only with the petitioner and the petitioner only was asked to express its willingness, and not any other firms. Such a course cannot be allowed to be adopted in the matter of awarding contract by the State and its instrumentality . The High Power Committee, therefore, has rightly refused to accept the recomme ndation of the Purchase Committee proceeding dated 06.01.2011 and has taken a de cision to float tender for procurement of the said sports goods. It also appears that in the last financial year of 2010-11 the goods were procured by following tender system. That being the position, I do not find any merit in the present writ pet ition and hence the same is dismissed. No costs.