Contractors Assn., RIMS vs RIMS & 2 Ors

Sanjay Kumar, CJ

(Video Conferencing)

The original file, pertaining to the issue under consideration, was produced by Mr.M.Devananda, learned counsel for RIMS, Imphal. Perusal of the running note-file therein indicates that a meeting was scheduled to be held on 14.12.2020 to discuss the draft rules regulating the enlistment of contractors in RIMS, Imphal, but it was postponed due to the grave situation caused by Covid-19 pandemic. The entry bearing No.104 records this and states that a proposal may be put up for reconvening the meeting on a convenient date and time for further discussion and approval. Entry No.104 was signed with the date 19.02.2021. Thereafter, entry No.105 mentions as follows:- 'Please fix on 09.03.2021 at 11 am'. This entry was signed with the date 27.02.2021. There is no proper entry as such bearing entry No.106 but entry No.107 reads to the effect that, as was discussed and decided in the Committee meeting held on 09.03.2021, the notice for enlistment and revalidation of contractors should be published in the Institute's website and three local dailies. This entry bears a signature with the date 12.05.2021.

Interestingly, entry No.106 has been interpolated beside entry No.105 and the date under the signature is 27.02.2021, which was the date of the signature in relation to entry No.105. Surprisingly, there is no separate entry in the note-file as to the meeting that was held on 09.03.2021. When, even for the adjournment of a meeting, it was discussed at length in the note-file, it is rather difficult to accept that there would be no entry about a meeting wherein a discussion took place and a decision was taken.

Further, the original file contains the 'Proceedings of the Meeting held on 09.03.2021 at 11 am' in the office chamber of the Director, RIMS, Imphal, and it reads to the effect that the Committee approved the draft rules and decided that the notice for enlistment and re-validation of contractors may be published in the Institute's Website and in three leading local dailies. The draft rules which were purportedly approved during this meeting were attached therewith. Therein, Clause 3 (wrongly shown as Clause 6) stated that enlistment of contractors of all classes would be done by the Director, RIMS, on the recommendation of a Committee comprising Professor Indibor, HOD, Radiotherapy; Professor AK Brogen, Dean and HOD, Community Medicine; and the Consultant Engineer, RIMS. However, the set of draft rules which were stated to have been approved were also filed along with the affidavit-in-opposition of Respondents No.1, 2 and 3 and surprisingly, Clause 3 therein reads to the effect that enlistment of contractors of all classes would be done by the Director, RIMS, on the recommendation of a Committee to be constituted from time to time by the Director, RIMS. The aforestated clause is clearly not in keeping with the clause in the draft rules that were approved on 09.03.2021.

Mr.M.Devananda, learned counsel, seeks time to get instructions as to these discrepancies and contradictions. He may do so and file an additional affidavit, if necessary, by the next date of hearing.

Post on 21.01.2022.

A copy of this order shall be communicated online/ through WhatsApp to both the learned counsel.