IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1267 of 2010 MANIK CHAND S/O LATE KAPIL DEO CHAND, R/O VILLAGE- ALI NAGAR, PS-BIHARSHARIF DISTT- NALANDA----------------------PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, NALANDA 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, BIHAR STATE FOOD & CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION SONE BHAWAN, BIRCHAND PATEL PATH, PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE-CUM-CHAIRMAN DISTRICT TRANSPAORT COMMITTEE, NALANDA 4. VIKAS BHARTI, S/O MAHESHWARI PRASAD, PS+PO-SOUR SARAI MOHALLA-KARUNA BAG DISTT- BIHARSHARIF,NALANDA--------- ---------------------------RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Y.V.Giri,Sr. Advocate & Mr. R.N.Dubey, Advocate For Respondent no.4:Mr. M.F.Hoda, Advocate For the Corporation:Mr. R.S.Pradhan, Sr. Advocate. ---------- 9 30.4.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner in the present writ applications wants quashing of the order dated 2.1.2010 by virtue of which respondent no.3 the District Magistrate-cum-Chairman District Transport Committee, Nalanda has recommended the name of persons who did not fulfill the criteria on the date of opening of the tender floated by the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation. Tender is for transportation of food grains etc. from depots to various destinations. From the materials and pleadings which has come on record the petitioner alleges that respondent no.4, namely, Vikas Bharti did not have the three minimum trucks having ownership to be eligible for consideration, at least with regard to one truck which has registration No. BR-21-9281. The truck was put to scrutiny by District Manager, Bihar State Food & Civil Supplies Corporation Nalanda and he found the same unusable - 2 - lying in condemned position and even doubts were expressed about paper of ownership. There is conflicting report between the inspection carried out by the District Manager and the so called subsequent inspection by D.T.O. Nalanda. The DTO Nalanda gave certification that the truck is in functional position and is fit and road worthy. Obviously the two reports are not reconcilable. There cannot be so much of variance with regard to one truck in the perception of two authorities. The Court therefore decided to have its own opinion about the status of the truck. Respondent no.4 was directed to produce the same at Patna for inspection. Vide order dated 29.4.2010 respondent no.4 was directed to produce the truck before the Managing Director of the respondent Corporation for final verification. A committee was constituted which included the DTO and MVI of Patna. The report of the said committee has been furnished to the Court by learned counsel representing Corporation. It is recorded that all the counsels to the dispute were handed over the report to peruse. The content of the report therefore is public and nothing hidden. The report speaks for itself which certifies that the allegation made by the petitioner against wrong recommendation in favour of respondent no.4 stands established. In otherwords respondent no.4 has been obliged both by DTO, Nalanda if not the office of the District Magistrate, - 3 - Nalanda. The report of the Managing Director of the respondent Corporation is placed on the record. The Court expresses serious displeasure in the manner in which the public duties are performed and there could be an occasion to get into the details in the manner in which such reports are submitted to favour of some may be for some consideration. With the status of the truck in question and doubts about its usability being certified obviously the recommendation made by the District Magistrate in favour of Respondent no.4 is for extraneous reasons and does not state the true state of affairs. It is not possible for the District Magistrate to look into all the affairs personally but it is for the District Magistrate not to take said responsibility in such a casual manner. With the above facts having emerged the Court need not go into other submissions since they have lost their meaning. The allegation made by the petitioner having been established, the recommendation made in favour of respondent no.4 is hereby quashed. The Corporation would be well advised to take into consideration the fact that the present petitioner happens to be next lowest tenderer while finalizing the contract in question. Before parting the Court directs the District Magistrate, Nalanda to hold an enquiry against the DTO, Nalanda and forward his report within fifteen days from the date of communication or production of a copy of this order as to under - 4 - what circumstance a sham or begotten report was furnished to him. This writ application is disposed of with the above direction. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)