AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioners have filed the Writ application for the following reliefs:
“(i)Setting aside the proceeding dated 29.9.2015 by the District Magistrate West Champaran Bettiah upon which the District-Magistrate has cut the rate of different commodities which has been approved by the District Purchase Committee constituted under the direction of Districtmagistrate it self and headed by Additional Collector Bettiah east Champaran Bettiah.
(ii)Further commanding the respondents authorities to follows the provision of Bihar Jail Mannual and make payment of Supplied Article accordingly which has been approved by the committee it self and pay rest amount accordingly Cuttel .Which has been cattle by D.M. East Champaran, Bettiah.
(iii)Grant any other over incidental or Consequential. reliefs or reliefs for which the petitioners can be found entitled for.”
At the very outset, the Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the issue involved in this Writ petition has already been settled by this Court in CWJC No. 66 of 2013 (Tanuja Kumari V. The State of Bihar & Ors) and there the Court has held that the Central Purchase Committee has its own area or operation and District Purchase Committee led by the District Magistrate has its own area and the Central Purchase Committee cannot take over the work of the District Purchase Committee and held that if the District Purchase Committee has fixed the rate of supply he cannot be deprived of the rate which is fixed by the District Purchase Committee even though the Central Purchase Committee has reduced the rate.
Heard the Learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the Learned counsel for the State.
In Tanuja Kumari (supra) this Court has held as follows:
“In a similar manner Rule 24 requires a Central Purchase Committee to take a decision in this regard and Sub Rule (6) thereof vests jurisdiction in the Inspector General to sanction a higher rate then recommended by the Purchase Committee. This singular provision by itself is supportive of the fact that a rate recommended by the District Jail Purchase Committee is not to be interfered with in a light manner unless the Inspector General of Prisons is of the opinion to sanction a higher rate. In the present case it is absolutely the converse and the rates as recommended by the respective District Jail Purchase Committee has been interfered with by the Central Purchase Committee to reduce the same. The period of supply is over and the petitioners have made their supplies under the legitimate expectation of the rates recommended by the District Jail Purchase Committee. In my opinion once the District Jail Purchase Committee has approved and recommended the rates offered by the petitioners by following the procedure provided under Rule 1051(v) and it is upon such approval that the supplies were made by the petitioners then the same cannot be reversed unilaterally, midway in the contract and without the consent of the contracting party i.e the petitioners herein. The respondents are estopped from interfering with the rates so recommended by the District Jail Purchase Committee in view of the statutory prescriptions as well as on the principles of legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel. In so far as the District of Saharsa and Nawada is concerned, the illegality is further perpetuated when the respondents have gone ahead to recover the differential amount. Apart from the fact that the Central Purchase Committee though presided by the Inspector General of Prisons has no jurisdiction to reverse the rate recommended by the District Jail Purchase Committee even otherwise, once the petitioners have made their supplies at a rate recommended by the District Jail Purchase Committee then the rate can not be interfered in the midst of the contract to the prejudice of a contracting party. For the reasons so assigned hereinabove, the Writ petitions are allowed, the orders impugned in the respective Writ petitions are set aside. The respective Jail Superintendents are directed to make payment of the balance differential amount to the petitioners for the supply made during the financial year 2012-13 in so far as the petitioner in C.W.J.C.No. 66 of 2013 is concerned and for the period 2013-14 in the case of the remaining two Writ petitioners, as per the rates recommended by the respective District Jail Purchase Committee after adjusting the amount already paid to them. The Inspector General of Prisons is accordingly directed to release the funds for the purpose.”
Having regard to the submissions made by the parties, and in view of the fact that this matter is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment, the Writ application is allowed, in light of the order passed in Tanuja Kumari (supra), and accordingly, the petitioner would be entitled for the benefit in terms of the rate fixed by the District Purchase Committee after adjusting the amount already paid to them.
The Inspector General of Prison, Bihar, Patna is directed to release the fund. All process should be completed within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
Accordingly, this Writ petition is allowed in terms of order passed in Tanuja Kumari (supra).
Interlocutory Application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.