Kuldip Book Centre vs State of Jammu and Kashmir through Commissioner

The petitioner deal with the supply of books to the Education Department and claim that they are the members of the Federation of Publishers

and Book Sellers Association in India and thereby also members of good officers Committee (Federation of Publishers and Book Sellers

Association in India).It is pleaded that a member of the said association is bound to accept the terms and conditions laid down by the Good

Offices Committee and the petitioners being the members thereof are under an obligation to accept the same. The said Good Offices Committee

has prescribed a uniform rate of discount at the rate of 10% at the published prices in respect of all books in English, Hindi and other languages:

The exceptional categories are also specified where discount to the extent of 30% can be given (AnnexureA).

The case of the petitioner is that respondent No.2 (Director School Education, Jammu) in his capacity as ""Conveyor of the Divisional Purchase

Committee, School Education Department, Jammu issued (tender notice) NIT No. 02DSEJ of 1996 dated 27.7.1996 whereby he invited duly

quoting discount over an above the discount recommended by the Good Offices Committee. Respondent No.2 has intentionally kept loopholes in

the said tender for the supply of even those books which have not been categorized as ""standard books"" at the National and state level.

The petitioners have challenged the views of the above said tender notice on the following grounds:

No discount over and above the discount recommended by the""Good Officer Committee"" can be asked for from the members of the

Federation of Publishers and Book Sellers in India.

Respondent No.2 (Director School Education Jammu) has no jurisdiction to issue the tender notice as well as to fix the amount of discount by

styling himself to be the convener of the Divisional Books Purchase Committee. Petitioner have prayed that writ of Certiorari may be issued

thereby (tender notice) NIT Nl, 92DSEJ of 1996 dated 27/7/1996 may be quashed. Any other relief found fit in the circumstance is also prayed

for. Respondents have filed the objections wherein it is pleaded that no fundamental or statutory right of the petitioner has been violated which

could give rise to any cause of action and as such the petition is not maintainable. Furthermore, it is pleaded that in super session to all previous

orders, the Government has now issued order No. 1173Edu of 1996 dated: 2/7/1996 where by sanction was accorded to the constitution of

Divisional Level Selection Committee"" for the selection of books which are to be purchased for all the Libraries of the School Education

Department for the year 199697. In pursuance of the said order, tender notice in question has been issued and it is valid in the eye of law.

The argument of the learned counsel appearing for the parties have been heard who have prayed for the disposal of the case on merits.

Mr. Lehar at the outset has contended that respondent No.2 was not legally competent to call tender (NIT No. 02 DESJ of 1996) for the

purchase of books referred therein as such power had specifically been delegated to the Government functionaries specified at S.No. 7Bat page

175 of the Book of Financial Powers, (second Edition of 1990). Here the heads of Educational Institutions have been delegated with such powers

to the extent of budgetary limits after fulfilling the conditions laid down therein. At page 176 under head (ii) it is provided that ""a Committee

consisting of Secretary to Government, Higher School Education and heads of Department of Higher Education/School Education Libraries"" will at

the beginning of each financial year ascertain from the Government of India/University Grants Commission and Federation of Indian Book Sellers

and Publishers, the rate of discount and the conversion rate of foreign publisher applicable for that year and communicate the same to all

purchasing officers. A bare perusal of the provision of law discloses that rate of discount are to be determined by a committee consisting of

Secretary to Government, Higher School Education Department and heads of departments of Higher Education/School Education/Libraries. Such

a committee has to ascertain the rates of discount from the Government of India/University Grants Commission and Federation of Indian Book

sellers and Publishers.

Mr. Chauhan has countered the argument on the plea that subsequent Government order No. 1173Edu of 1996 dated 271996 supersedes the

financial powers delineated in the Book of Financial powers (at page 176 of S. No.7B). This argument, on first impression seems to be quite

specious but subsequently pales into insignificance when the said Government order is read in between the lines. The order encompasses the

Constitution of ""Divisional Selection Committees"" for the selection of Books for school libraries and nowhere has it adumbrated the supply of

books and fixing the rate of discount. The controversy which has been generated herein is with regard to issuing of tender notice i.e NIT No.

02DSEJ of 1996 dated 2771996 which is an offer for entering into contract with the tender for the supply of books on the terms and conditions

contained therein and to be accepted by the committee headed by respondent No.2.

The Government in its wisdom already has delegated the powers for fixing the rates of discount on a committee headed by Secretary to

Government, Higher School Education Department and it is not known how respondent No.2 (Director School Education, Jammu) is stepping into

his shoes and started the process of fixing the discount. In order to check any pilferage of the public money the high ranking committee was

constituted on the basis of old maxim ""Les nil facit frustra"" (law does nothing in vain) but the facts of the case disclose that this power has been

abdicated and a person who has no locusstandi has been asserting his authority to overreach the lawful authority of the concerned Secretary to

Government. The old adage, ""salus populi est supreme lex"" (which means that regard for public welfare is the highest law) has been found to be

given a good by. It is regrettable that the holders of public office, both big and small, have forgotten that the offices entrusted to them are sacred

trust. Such offices are meant for use and not abuse. The offices of the Government who under law have been vested with the powers to discharge

public functions shall realize their responsibility towards the society and without exhibiting ostrich syndrome obey the dictates of law within a span

of two months.

With these findings, writ petition is accepted and tender notice (NIT No. 02DSEJ of 1996 dated 27/7/1996) is hereby quashed. In the

circumstances the petitioners are not found eligible for the grant of any other relief. Accordingly, the connected CMP s is also disposed of.