WP(C) 1436/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI Heard Mr. RP Sarma, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel for Assam Sarba Siksha Abhiyan Mission. As agreed to by the learned counsels for both sides and in view of the s ubject matter involved, final orders in the writ petition are being passed at th e admission stage. A NIT dated 10.6.2009 was issued by the District Mission Coordinator, So nitpur inviting sealed quotations from registered firms/companies/authorized dea lers for supply of stationeries/teaching and learning materials (TLM), computer accessories and sports items to the Office of the District Mission Coordinator, Sonitpur. Clause-19 of the detailed terms and conditions of the NIT made it clea r that the rates quoted by a tenderer shall remain valid for a period one year f rom the date of approval thereof. Several firms, companies and individuals submi tted their quotations for different items pursuant to the NIT dated 10.6.2009. T he petitioner which is a sole proprietorship concern submitted its quotations fo r supply of office stationeries and TLM. The District Level Purchase Committee i n the meeting held on 13.11.2009 resolved that the lowest offer submitted by a t enderer should be accepted and orders for the relevant items should be placed on such lowest offer. 159 items were included under the broad category of statione ries and TLM, out of which, in respect of 17 items, the petitioner had either si ngly or alongwith other tenderers offered the lowest rate. The District Mission Coordinator by letter dated 21.12.2009 informed the petitioner that out of diffe rent items, procurement of drawing books was necessary and as the petitioner had offered the lowest rate (Rs.15/-) for multi coloured drawing books, it should i ndicate its acceptance to supply such material. Thereafter, on 4.1.2010, a suppl y order to the extent of 18,840 pieces of drawing books containing 40 pages of 1 00 GSM size 297 x 210 mm was placed with the petitioner. According to the petiti oner, it had executed the said order on 10.1.2010. Thereafter, it appears that o n 2nd February, 2010, the sample of the drawing books made available by the peti tioner was approved by the Mission authorities. While the matter was so situated , another NIT dated 25.2.2010 was issued canceling the earlier NIT dated 10.6.20 09 on the basis of which the petitioner was found to be the lowest offerer for 1 7 items and order for one item i.e. the drawing books to the extent noticed abov e had already been placed and executed by the petitioner. Shri RP Sarma, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has c ontended that the publication of the NIT dated 25.2.2010 in effect operates as a cancellation of the acceptance of the lowest offer of the petitioner in respect of 17 items as per decision of the District Level Purchase Committee dated 13.1 1.2009. Shri Sarma has urged that in terms of the aforesaid decision of the Purc hase Committee, the petitioner is entitled to supply 17 items as and when orders are to be placed for the same. Specifically, Shri Sarma has argued that the pet itioner has a right to continue to supply the drawing books for which a part ord er has already been placed on it by the Mission authorities. Such rights of the petitioner, according to Shri Sarma, stands nullified by the issuance of the sec ond NIT dated 25.2.2010. Referring to the affidavit filed by the Respondent Nos. 2 and 4 i.e. Mission authorities and the Respondent No.3, the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Sonitpur, Shri Sarma has urged that the reasons indicated therein does not disclose good and sufficient justification for the impugned action in so far as the 17 items in question is concerned. Learned counsel, therefore, has prayed for interference with the impugned action by the respondents, particular ly the NIT dated 25.2.2010 to the extent indicated above. In reply Shri S. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel of the Mission has draw n the attention of the Court to paragraph-6 of the affidavit filed by the Missio n authorities wherein it is mentioned that on different dates authorized firms w ho were identified to be the lowest offerer for very many items of stationeries and TLM had indicated their inability to supply the concerned materials at the q uoted rate. The learned Standing Counsel for the Mission has drawn the attention of the Court to the statements made in the counter affidavit of the Respondent Nos. 2 and 4 which are to the effect that verbal information had been received b y the Deputy Commissioner, Sonitpur regarding the process initiated by the NIT d ated 2.6.2010. Such complaints, it is stated in the affidavit filed, were to the effect that tenders have not been submitted in sealed cover and the tender box was not opened as per the conditions stipulated in the NIT. According to the res pondents, in the aforesaid facts, a decision was taken to issue a fresh NIT culm inating in the impugned NIT dated 25.2.2010. The learned Standing Counsel has al so drawn the attention of the Court to similar statements made in the affidavit of the Respondent No.3 i.e. the Additional Deputy Commissioner which are contain ed in paragraphs 6 and 8 thereof. The facts of the case narrated in the foregoing paragraphs of the presen t order would indicate that there is no dispute that the District Level Purchase Committee had taken a decision that the lowest rate for the different stationer ies and TLM had been accepted and orders were to be placed accordingly. The peti tioner having quoted the lowest rate for 17 different items was, therefore, enti tled to supply the said items. There is also no dispute that though other person s or firms who had quoted the lowest rate had expressed their inability to suppl y the items at such rates, no such inability was expressed by the petitioner fir m. There is also no dispute that the drawing books supplied by the petitioner on 10.1.2010, though before approval of the sample which was on 2.2.2010, was not found by the Mission authorities to be, in any way, deficient or not meeting the requirement of the Mission or to be contrary to the specifications. In so far a s the complaint received by the Deputy Commissioner, Sonitpur is concerned, it i s not the case of the Respondents that any such complaint pertains to the writ p etitioner. If the petitioner had quoted the lowest rate for 17 items and it is the decision of the Purchase Committee to accept the lowest rate offered by a tender er, the petitioner had a right to receive work orders for the 17 items as and wh en the same are to be issued depending upon the needs of the Mission. In so far as the 17 items are concerned, the petitioner had not expressed any inability to supply the same at its quoted rate. It is, therefore, difficult to visualize as to how the petitioner can be denied the right to make supplies merely because o ther tenderers had expressed their inability to supply other stationery items or teaching and learning materials at the rate quoted by them. It is not the resp ondents’ case that any complaint with regard to irregularities in the tender sub mitted by the petitioner had been received by the Deputy Commissioner which upon verification was found to be true. All the above discussions can only lead to t he conclusion that by issuing the NIT dated 25.2.2010 in respect of the statione ry items and teaching and learning materials, the right vested in the petitioner to supply 17 of such items has been nullified. No good ground for such action h aving been disclosed by the respondents in the present case, the Court is of the view that the decision to issue a fresh NIT and the NIT dated 25.2.2010 issued pursuant to such decision should not be allowed to affect the right of the petit ioner in so far as the 17 items for which he had quoted the lowest rate is conce rned. Accordingly, the aforesaid decision of the respondents and the NIT issued in so far as the 17 items for which the petitioner had offered the lowest rate i s concerned stands interfered with. The NIT dated 25.2.2010, however, may be bro ught to its logical conclusion for the rest of the items i.e. excluding the 17 i tems for which the petitioner had quoted the lowest rate. Consequently, in view of the foregoing decision, the writ petition is al lowed. The impugned NIT dated 25.2.2010 stands interfered with to the extent ind icated above.