^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (0 No.5215 of 2010 PETITIQKER: RESPONDENTS: M/s Vandana Sales, through sole Proprietor, Smt. Bhagwati Devi Gupta, W/o Puranlal Gupta, aged 55 years, office at station Road, Raipur (CG) Versus 1. 2. 3. 4. State of CG, through Secretary Home (Jail) Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantrataya, Raipur, (CG) Director General of Jail, Raipur (CG) Inspector General of Jail, Raipur (CG) Superintendent of Jail, Central Jail, Raipur (CG) Writ Petition (C) No.5216 of 2010 PETITIONER: RESPONDENTS: M/s A.G. Traders, through sole Proprietor, Abdul Gaffar, S/o Mishri Khan, aged 60 years, office at K.K. Road, Modhapara, Raipur (CG) Versus PETITIONER: 1. 2. 3. 4. State of CG, through Secretary hlome (Jail) Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, (CG) Director General of Jail, Raipur (CG) Inspector General of Jail, Raipur (CG) Superintendent of Jail, Central Jail, Raipur (CG) Writ Petition (C) No.5217 of 2010 M/s Mulkraj Ahuja and Sons, through sole Proprietor, Mahesh Ahuja, S/o late Mulkraj Ahuja, aged 50 years, office at Kelkar Para, Raipur (CG) ^-•^^ .^-^ 'I ^ \^ Versys RESPONDENTS: 1. 2. 3. 4. State of CG, through Secretary Home (Jail) Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, (CG) Director General of Jail, Raipur (CG) Inspector General of Jail, Raipur (CG) Superintendent of Jail, Central Jail, Raipur (CG) Writ Petition (C) No.5218 of 2010 PETITIONER: M/s Vijay Sales, through sole Proprietor, Vijay Agrawal, S/o late Parmanad Agrawal, aged 35 years, office at Shop No.27, Adishewar Complex, Ramsagar Para, Raipur (CG) Versus RESPOI^DENTS: 1. 2. 3. 4. State of CG, through Secretary Home (Jail) Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, (CG) Director General of Jail, Raipur (CG) Inspector General of Jail, Raipur (CG) Superintendent of Jail, Central Jail, Raipur (CG) Writ Petition (C) No.5219 of 2010 PETITIONER: M/s Ashok Traders Co., through sole Proprietor, Smt. Indupatni, W/o Sohanlal Patni, aged 50 years, office at Bhoipara, Durg (CG) Versus RESPONDENTS: State of CG, through Secretary Home (Jail) Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, (CG) Director General of Jail, Raipur (CG) /. ^ t......,;'1: t"^ ^^: ^^-z.^y'" 3. 4. .s*^..A«,^®ssyiBs-.' M3 Inspector General of Jail, Raipur (CG) Superintendent of Jail, Central Jail, Raipur (CG) Writ Petition (0 No.5220 of 2010 PETITIONER: M/s Vijay Traders, through sole Proprietor, Tribhuwan Tiwari, S/o late Ayodhya Prasad Tiwari, aged 52 years, office at Shukrawari Bazar, Gudihari, Raipur (CG) Versus RESPONDENTS: 1. 2. 3. 4. State of CG, through Secretary hlome (Jail) Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, (CG) Director General of Jail, Raipur (CG) Inspector General of Jait, Raipur (CG) Superintendent of Jail, Central Jail, Raipur (CG) Writ Petition (C) No.5221 of 2010 PETITIONER: RESPONDENTS: M/s Charu Suppliers, through sole Proprietor, Prateek Jain, S/o Narendra Jain, aged 28 years, office at Sanmati Nagar, Fafadih Raipur (CG) Versus 1. 2. 3. 4. State of CG, through Secretary Home (Jail) Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, (CG) Director General of Jail, Raipur (CG) Inspector General of Jail, Raipur (CG) Superintendent of Jail, Central Jail, Raipur (CG) Writ Petition (0 No.5222 of 2010 UM •:^^f/' PETITIONER: M/s Sai Traders and Suppliers, through sole Proprietor, Sakir Ali, S/o Mohd. Ali, aged 40 years, office at Kelabadi, Durg (CG) Versus RESPONDENTS: 1. 2. 3. 4. State of CG, through Secretary Home (Jail) Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, (CG) Director General of Jail, Raipur (CG) Inspector General of Jail, Raipur (CG) Superintendent of Jail, Central Jail, Raipur (CG) AND Writ Petition (C) No.5223 of 2010 PETU-IQMER: M/s Deepak Kumar Mohanlal, through sole Proprietor, Swapnil Raheja, S/o Mohanlal Raheja, aged 28 years, office at Priyadarshani Nagar, Raipur (CG) Versus RESPONDENTS: 1. 2. 3. 4. State of CG, through Secretary Home (Jail) Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, (CG) Director General of Jail, Raipur (CG) Inspector General of Jail, Raipur (CG) Superintendent of Jail, Central Jail, Raipur (CG) Present: Shri Prafull Bharat with Shri Nikhil Agrawal, counsel for the petitioners. Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur, Deputy Advocate General with Shri Amrito Das, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. Division Bench: Hon'ble Shri Dhirendra Mishra & Hon'ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar. JJ. ,•-:', ^, -^y ^ ORDER (10-9-2010) 1. The aforesaid writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order as they are arising out of the same dispute. 2. Respondent No.4 invited offers from the interested persons for supply offood and other necessary commodities through publication of NIT in the newspaper vide Annexure-P/3 and P/4 for consumption of the prisoners in the jail. The petitioners submitted their respective tenders for supply of various foods and other commodities for the year 2010- 11. The Jail Store Purchase Committee, Central Jail, Raipur recommended to accept the tenders of the petitioners as indicated in their decision of Annexure-P/6 and an agreement for supply of commodity was entered into on 1-5-2010 for the year 2010-11 vide Annexure-P/7. However, IG (Prisons) vide his memo dated 9-6-2010 directed all the Superintendents of Jail of the State that directions of not purchasing grains and other commodities issued while his memo dated 24-5-2010 is relaxed up to 30th June, 2010. However, the Director General (Prisons) of the State directed all the Superintendents of Jail to comply with the order dated 5-6-2010 issued by the State Government and directed to cancel all the tenders of the petitioners and other successful bidders for supply of food grains and other commodities vide Annexure-P/11 dated 31-8-2010 and in compliance thereof, the tenders of the petitioners for supply of good grains and other articles have been cancelled on 3rd September, 2010 vide Annexure-P/1. 3. Shri Prafulla Bharat, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that from perusal of the documents annexed with the petitions, it would be evident that annual tender contract for the year 2010-11 is arbitrarily and illegally cancelled under clause 20 of the conditions of the NIT. However, from perusal of the above condition, it is evident that power to cancel tender is vested with the Inspector General (Prisons) whereas the tenders have been cancelled as per the directions of the Home Department of the State Government dated 5 June, 2010 and the same has been done without complying the due ^ <0/ procedure prescribed under the law. There is no power with the Superintendent Jail, Raipur to cancel the tenders under the agreement or conditions of NIT. Referring to CG Jail Supply Rules, 1968 (for short 'the Rules, 1968'), it was argued that Rute 11 of the above rules empowers the Inspector General (Prisons) to accept or reject any tender within 2 months of the proposal of the Jail Superintendent. However, in the instant case, the tenders have been cancelled by the Director General (Prisons) on the basis of decision of the State Government before whom an appeal lies under Rule 12 against the order of the Inspector General (Prisons). 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State argued that tenders of the petitioners were accepted in anticipation of approval of the Jail Headquarter, as would be evident from Annexure-P/6. An agreement of Annexure-P/7 is temporary and only for the period till its approval is obtained from the IG (Prisons). Since the tenders have been finally cancelled by the Director General (Prisons), who is higher authority than IG (Prison), as per policy decision of the State Government, therefore, the petitioners cannot raise a dispute that cancellation has not been made by the authority under the Rules. The State Government has taken policy decision of effecting Central Purchasing of food grains and other commodities for all the prisons of the State. Clause 20 of the conditions of the tender notice clearly empowers the Inspector General of Police to reject the tender of any person or cancel the entire tender process. In the instant case also, tenders of all the bidders have been cancelled. Their petitions are not maintainable as there is no infringement of fundamental right of the petitioners. The petitioners can institute a civil suit before the Court of competent jurisdiction for damages for violation oftheir contractual rights, ifany. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. From perusal of the document of Annexure-P/6, it is clear that acceptance of offer is in anticipation of approval from the Jail ^.y '^^y^.ff'y; -•• i^ ^^ Headquarters. Clause 20 of the conditions of NIT also mentions that tenders are to be approved by the Inspector General (Prisons) and this clause confers powers upon the IG (Prisons) to reject any offer or to cancel the entire tender process. 7. From perusal of Jail Supply Rules, 1968 also, it is seen that IG (Prisons) may accept or cancel any tender within 2 months from the receipt of proposal of the Jail Superintendent. 8. Indisputably, the proposal for acceptance of tenders by the Jail Superintendent was subject to approval of Jail Headquarters and the tenders have been cancelled before the approval. 9. In the absence of specific approval from the authorities mentioned in NIT and the supply rules, 1968, the petitioners have no right to challenge the order canceling their tenders passed by the Director General (Prisons) as per order of the State Government. 10. The writ petitions are dismissed accordingly. Barve Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge