1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1827 of 2008 (M/S) Gharda Chemicals Limited Through its Regional Manager Registered office at 5 / 6 Jermension, 10 W.P. Verde Marg, Bandra (W), Mumbai – 400 050. . Petitioner ...………… [ Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Govt. of Uttarakhand, Dehradun, Uttarakhand. 2. Secretary Agriculture, Government of Uttarakhand, Secretariat, Dehradun, Uttarakhand. 3. Director, Agriculture, State of Uttarakhand, Nanda Ki Chowki Premnagar, Dehradun, Uttarakhand. 4. Uttaranchal Seeds and Tarai Development Corporation Limited, Pantnagar, District Udham Singh Nagar. ...…………. Respondents Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Addl. C.S.C. for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Advocate for respondent No. 4. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing the orders dated 29.07.2008 and 19.08.2008, passed by 2 Plant Protection Officers of Districts Nainital and Udham Singh Nagar, respectively. A further mandamus has been sought commanding the respondents not to proceed with the tender process initiated by them vide advertisement dated 4th of September 2008. 3) Brief facts of the case are that the writ petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act and involved in business of manufacturing pesticides. It is stated in the writ petition that the petitioner company, who used to supply pesticides since 1991 in the State of Uttar Pradesh, had entered into Memorandum of Understanding (for brevity hereinafter referred as MOU) with the respondent No. 4 i.e. Uttaranchal Seeds and Tarai Development Corporation Limited on 29.11.2004, where it was agreed between the Corporation and the respondent No. 4 that it would supply herbicide under the brand name SAFAL 75 to the farmers in the State. The said MOU has expired. It is further stated in the writ petition that Plant Protection Officer, Nainital, vide his letter dated 29.07.2008 (copy Annexure –4 to the writ petition) asked the petitioner company to supply Sulfosulfuron in the packing of 13.5 gms. in the District of Nainital, within a period of fifteen days. It is further stated that thereafter, vide letter dated 19.08.2008 (copy Annexure –5 to the writ petition), the petitioner company was placed similar order by Plant Protection Officer, Udham Singh Nagar 3 for said District. It is also alleged that even before fifteen days time could expire from 19.08.2008, the respondents have invited tenders for supply of the pesticide (copy of which is Annexure –10 to the writ petition), after cancelling the orders placed on the petitioner company. Hence, the writ petition. 4) A counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No. 3 Director, Agriculture, Uttarakhand, in which it has been stated that though the petitioner was given orders to supply Sulfosulfuron by the Plant Protection Officers of District Nainital and Udham Singh Nagar, but the petitioner failed to supply the same. Apart from this, it has further been stated that under the Uttarakhand Procurement Rules, 2008, tenders were required to be invited before placing the orders for supply of the pesticides. Hence, the cancellation of the orders passed in favour of the petitioner, are justified. 5) As far as the supply order dated 29.07.2008 issued by Plant Protection Officer, Nainital is concerned, the explanation given in the counter affidavit for cancellation of said order is justified, as in the writ petition the petitioner has nowhere stated that he could supply the pesticide within the period allowed to him. (Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that he does not want to file the rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 3). However, as far as cancellation of the order dated 4 19.08.2008 issued by the Plant Protection Officer, Udham Singh Nagar is concerned, though the petitioner was allowed under said order to supply the pesticide within a period of fifteen days, the cancellation appears to have been made within nine days of placing the order. There is no mention in the cancellation order dated 28.08.2008 (copy Annexure –8 to the writ petition) that which condition was violated by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that after the order was placed by the Plant Protection Officer, Udham Singh Nagar, the petitioner company had already started producing Sulfosulfuron (wheat herbicide) as per the directions of said officer and incurred the expenses in the same. Annexure C.A. 3 to the counter affidavit filed by respondent No. 3 shows that Plant Protection Officer, Udham Singh Nagar, has clarified to the respondent No. 3 that the order dated 19.08.2008 was placed after getting approval from the senior officers, but when he came to know on 28.08.2008 that at the Directorate level new policy is being adopted, he cancelled the order on that day. 6) In the above circumstances, as far as the order dated 19.08.2008 placed by the Plant Protection Officer, Udham Singh Nagar is concerned, its cancellation on the part of the said authority is illegal and arbitrary. However, the same cannot be said for the order placed by the Plant Protection Officer, Nainital, in 5 respect of which the petitioner failed to make the supply within time. As far as the impugned tender notice invited by the respondent authority is concerned, the same also needs no interference except to the extent above, covered under letter dated 19.08.2008. 7) Therefore, the writ petition is allowed only to the extent that the petitioner company shall be permitted to supply Sulfosulfuron (wheat herbicide) as per the letter dated 19.08.2008, issued by the Plant Protection Officer, Udham Singh Nagar. However, in respect of the other reliefs the writ petition is dismissed. (Stay Application No. 6672 of 2008 also stands disposed of). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) [ Dt. November 17, 2008. H.Negi