IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3094 of 2011 RAJIV KUMAR SON OF SRI RAMESHWAR PRASAD SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-SIHMA, P.P.- SIHAMA, P.S.- MATIHANI, DISTRICT- BEGUSARAI. PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA , THROUGH IT’S SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FOOD GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. 2. THE FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, THROUGH IT’S GENERAL MANAGER. 3. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER ®, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, ARUNACHAL BHAWAN, EXIBITION ROAD, CHAURAHA- 4TH FLOOR, PATNA. 4. THE AREA MANAGER, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, DISTRICT OFFICE, KASHIPUR, NEAR- PATEL MAIDAN, SAMASTIPUR, BIHAR. 5. SRI SURENDRA KUMAR GUPTA, SON OF NOT KNOWN, AT P.O- SHAMBHOO PATTI, DISTRICT- SAMASTIPUR …..RESPONDENTS. For the petitioner : Mr. Rajiv Kumar Verma, Sr. Adv. : Mr. Rajnesh, Adv. For the F.C.I. : Mr. Prabhakar Tekriwal, Adv. ----------- 3. 25.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. In spite of notices sent and duly served upon private respondent no. 5, no one appears on his behalf. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for setting aside letter dated 21.01.2011 Vide No. SPJ/CONT/13(4)/ ADHOC MIC/10-11/1202 by which the Area Manager, Food Corporation of India, District Officer, Samastipur (Respondent No. 4) awarded contract in favour of respondent no.5 appointing him Adhoc Mandi Handling contractor for Handling of Food grains during KMS-2010-11 (Kharif Marketing Season) in the District of Samastipur at P.P.C.Sugar Mill, Samastipur and P.P.C. Rosera(procurement Centres) against the Tender Notice dated 18.11.2010 vide Ref. No. SFJ/Cont 13(4) ADHOC MLC- 2 2010-11/1017. 3. The point raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Handling rate offered by respondent no.5 and accepted by the respondent authorities was Rs. 1.00 per quintal for Samastipur and Rs. 1.47 per quintal for Rosera, but that was much below the rate notified by the State Government under the Minimum Wages Act. According to the technical bid for the Adhoc handling/transport contract was valid up to 31.5.2011 which can be extended till KMS 2011-12 up to 31.8.2011 and the Corporation was given liberty to extend the said period for a further period of one month up to 30.9.2011. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents in which it has been stated that the rate provided by respondent no. 5 was accepted by the authorities. But it is also not in dispute that at the rate offered by respondent no.5 payment cannot validly be made to the workers as per the notification issued by the State Government under the Minimum Wages Act. 5. The main contention of the respondent authorities is that even if the tender of respondent no.5 is quashed for the above reason, the writ petitioner will not be benefited from it as his rate is higher than the rate as notified under the Minimum Wages Act and in between respondent no.5 (Sri Surendra Kumar) and the writ petitioner there is another bidder Pankaj Kumar, whose rate is lower than the rate of the writ petitioner. It is also stated that the said Pankaj Kumar has not been made party to this writ petition nor 3 he has challenged the contract made in favour of respondent no. 5. In support of these contentions the respondents have annexed a comparative chart of rate quoted by the tenderers as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. 6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case it is quite apparent that the contract awarded to respondent no.5 was not at all legal, valid and proper, because according to the rate offered by respondent no.5, the workers cannot be legally paid as per the notifications issued under the Minimum Wages Act. The terms and conditions of the contract (Annexure-3) specifically provides under clause’C’ that the contractors shall pay not less than minimum wages to the workers engaged by him in time. Hence even if respondent no.5 makes payment to the workers as per the notification made under the Minimum Wages Act beyond the amount received from the authorities, it would certainly show that there are some other undisclosed sources of income which respondent no.5 is receiving on getting the contract, which is quite contrary to the terms of contract. 7. Hence, the said contract is not sustainable in law but respondent no. 5 has continued with the contract from January 2011 up till date and there is specific statement of the respondents in Paragraph 16 of the counter affidavit that the period of contract with respondent no. 5 expires on 30.4.2011, hence today being 25.04.2001, only five days are left. Hence, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances as well the materials on record, the 4 impugned contract is hereby quashed and the respondents are directed to stop respondent no. 5 from doing any contractual work henceforth and no extension should be granted to the said contract in favour of respondent no.5 by any of the authority. 8. Now the procedure for fresh advertisement for the said purpose is required to be taken by the authorities concerned which in the earlier case had taken more than two months. Hence for the interim period if the respondents feel necessity in case of wastage of food grains etc. they may ask the second lowest bidder Shri. Pankaj Kumar to enter into a temporary agreement for the said period at the rate earlier offered by him which was between the rates offered by respondent no.5 and petitioner and was above the rate notified as per the Minimum Wages Act. If the said Pankaj Kumar is not agreeable to the said offer then the authorities may extend the offer to the petitioner in case he is agreeable to adjustment of the rate offered by him in accordance with the rate as notified under the Minimum Wages Act. 9. With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition is disposed of. Devendra/ ( S.N. Hussain, J.)