IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16015 of 2009 ***** 1. SANJAY KUMAR SINGH S/O SRI MUKESH KUMAR SINGH VILL- SONPUR ADAM, P.O. & P.S. SONEPUR, DISTT. SARAN. …. …. Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH SECRETARY DEPTT. OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. BIHAR STATE FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLY CORPORATION LTD. THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SON BHAWAN, 5TH FLOOR, BEER CHAND PATEL PATH, P.S. KOTWALI, DISTT. PATNA 3. MANAGING DIRECTOR BIHAR STATE FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLY CORPORATION LTD., SON BHAWAN, 5TH FLOOR, BEER CHAND PATEL PATH, P.S. KOTWALI, DISTT. PATNA 4. DISTRICT COORDINATOR OF BIHAR STATE FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLY CORPORATION LTD., FOR DISTRICT CHAPRA CUM DISTRICT MANAGER BIHAR STATE FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLY CORPORATION CHAPRA. …. …. Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate Mr. Imtiyaz Ahmad, Advocate For the Corporation : Mr. R.S.Pradhan, Senior Advocate Mr. A.N. Rai, Advocate For the State : Mr. Kumar Alok, Standing Counsel-XIX ----------- 2. 24.11.2009. Heard counsel for the parties. Petitioner was awarded a contract of transportation of food- grains and other items in terms of an agreement entered between him and the respondent Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation for a period of one year. The agreement is Annexure-3 to the writ application. Before the one year period expired petitioner made an application before the respondents to consider the desirability of extending the contract on the old rate and the terms and conditions for yet another year on the basis of general terms and conditions of the tender with reference to Clause 11 as contained in Anenxure-4 to the writ application. The application of the petitioner was considered by the - 2 - committee constituted at the district level and a recommendation was made in favour of the petitioner but only of a limited kind. The recommendation was that the petitioner would be allowed to work till the next contractor is appointed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is unfair to him because there is no reason why recommendation should be of a limited kind when there is nothing on record to show that his work was not satisfactory. The same Corporation has extended the terms of contract by another year in favour of other contractors operating in other districts but petitioner is the only one who stands discriminated. Learned senior counsel appearing for the Corporation, however, submits that they have gone by the recommendation of the committee constituted at the district level of Saran. Though there is nothing palpable available on the record but a limited recommendation by itself shows that the work of the petitioner may not have been totally satisfactory or that the Corporations expects a better financial offer coming in their way for which fresh tenders have been invited. He further submits that the plea of discrimination or legitimate expectation urged at the Bar by learned counsel for the petitioner is not supported by any decision in this regard of any Court, in fact, the decision is to the contrary as would be evident from perusal of the case of State of W.B. v. Niranjan Singha, (2001) 2 SCC 326. There is some force in the submission made at the Bar on behalf of the respondents. The larger principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court cannot be disputed but it is also a fact that when certain - 3 - provisions in the agreement or the terms of tenders lays down that a request of the petitioner can be considered for extension if there is nothing adverse against him as such, then the Corporation does have an obligation to tell him in black and white as to what the position is. It is not understood by the Court that why only a limited recommendation has been made in favour of the petitioner without informing him as to the reasons for such a decision. The writ application is disposed of with a direction upon the Managing Director of the Corporation to look into the aspect of the matter and may be communicate his decision to the petitioner preferably before the tender is finalised in terms of the advertisement contained in Annexure-7. This writ application stands disposed of with above direction. Pawan/- (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)