AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. Gururajan, J.—One Fiyaz Ahmed is an allottee of shop No. 42 in the Beef Market, Shivajinagar, Bangalore. He is engaged in sale of beef in terms of the licence issued to him by the Corporation. He is carrying on the said business in the said shop for several years. He is also a registered Contractor with the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Bannerghatta National Park, Bangalore, for supply of feeding articles to the animals. He has supplied material without any complaint whatsoever. Respondent 2 called for tenders for supply of feeding articles for the year 2001-02 for the rescued animals Units 1 to 5 at Bannerghatta National Park, Petitioner and respondent 3 and others submitted the tenders to respondent 2. On 25-1-2001, the respondent 2 opened the tender and subsequently cancelled the same for technical reasons. A second tender notification was issued on 2-3-2001 calling for quotations at Units 1 to 5 again. Petitioner in this petition is concerned only insofar as it relates to Units 1 and 5 for the rescued animals at Bannerghatta National Park. Petitioner submitted a sealed tender to the respondent. On 22-3-2001 respondent 2 opened the tender. The tender submitted by one Horizon Quality Beef and Meat Suppliers came to be rejected. The other two tenders that was left for consideration by respondent 2, were that of the petitioner and respondent 3. Petitioner offered Rs. 31,58,550/- as against the offer of respondent 3 at Rs. 41,56,500/-. Thereafter, the respondent 1 in terms of his order rejected the tender submitted by the petitioner and accepted the tender submitted by respondent 3.
Petitioner further states that the tender conditions do not provide for any licence as could be seen from the material on record. Petitioner further states that he has a valid licence and therefore the rejection of his case is unsustainable. Petitioner says that respondent 3 does not have any separate licence whatsoever but still his case has been considered to the detriment of the petitioner. In the circumstances the petitioner is challenging Annexure-B, order passed by the respondent 2 in Court.
The State Government has also filed a counter and in the counter it is stated that the material facts reveal that the petitioner has no valid licence issued by the Municipal Corporation. The certificates submitted by the petitioners are from the Veterinary Officer and the Karnataka Meat and Poultry Marketing Corporation Limited. Those certificates cannot be treated as licences in the eye of law. They also rely on Annexure-R1. They have also filed Annexure-R2, a letter dated 24-4-2001. Annexure-R3 is the form of licence submitted by the petitioner after opening of the tender condition. They have also filed the proceedings at Annexure-R6.
I have heard the Counsels on either side.
Counsel for the petitioner reiterated the facts and the grounds raised in the petition in support of his case. Counsel further argued that respondent 3 has no licence at all and what is produced by respondent 3 is nothing but an agreement between the parties. Petitioner''s Counsel says that the petitioner has a licence in terms of Annexure-R3. Therefore, his case requires consideration.
Per contra respondents contend that the petitioner did not produce any licence at the time of opening of the tender. Contesting respondent says that what is produced by him is a legal licence and there is no other licence available for the purpose of tender.
In the light of these submissions made by Counsels on either side I have carefully gone through the material placed before me. Annexure-A is a tender notification bearing No. BNP/Feed CR:2572000-2001, dated 2-3-2001. The said tender is for supply of feeding articles for the year 2001-02. Tender conditions in terms of Annexure-R1 provides for a lowest rate for each unit in terms of Clause 15. In terms of Clause 24 a tenderer is required to supply the articles as per regular indents placed three days in advance by the Range Forest Officer. Clause 36 provides for production of a valid licence from the concerned Municipal Corporation.
In the light of this condition in terms of Clause 36 of Tender Notification, production of valid licence from the Municipal Corporation is a must as I see from the material on record. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that no licence need be produced at the time of submissions of tender cannot be accepted. Factually the petitioner has not produced the licence and, he has only produced Annexure-C and C2 which are nothing but certificates from the Karnataka Meat and Poultry Marketing Corporation Limited and from the Veterinary Officer. The respondents as I see from the proceedings have noticed that the petitioner did not submit a valid licence on the date of opening of the tender. Therefore, they have rejected his case. Insofar as respondent 3 is concerned they have accepted his tender in the light of the submission of Annexure-R2. The endorsement at Annexure-B states that petitioner''s case cannot be considered for want of licence. The said endorsement cannot be said to be bad in law in the light of the tender condition. However, in Annexure-B they have accepted the respondent 3''s tender on the basis of Annexure-R2. Annexure-R2 according to respondent 2 is a Licence issued by the Corporation. I am unable to accept this submission. Admittedly, Annexure-R2 is nothing but a deed of licence providing for occupation of shop No. 34 by respondent 3. A reading of the licence as a whole would show that it is only a licence to occupy the shop premises on payment of certain licence fee. No doubt in Clause 5 a condition has been imposed that licence viz., respondent 3, was to use the shop only for the purpose of sale of mutton beef. A restrictive clause with regard to use of shop for the purpose of selling beef mutton cannot be equated to a licence by the Corporation as contended by the respondent. To my repeated questions to the respondents they say that Annexure-R2 is the licence in favour of respondent 3. As I mentioned earlier a deed of licence mentioning the use of shop for selling beef mutton business cannot be termed as a licence from the concerned Municipal Corporation in terms of Clause 36 of Tender Notification. Therefore, the acceptance of tender of respondent 3 on the basis of Annexure-R2 require my interference and I do so in this case.
I must also point out at this stage that the petitioner subsequently after opening of the tender has submitted a licence issued by Bangalore Mahanagara Palike. The same has been filed by the respondent himself at Annexure-R3. It bears the signature of the Commissioner with a seal of the Medical Officer for Health, Bangalore City Corporation.
Mr. Dayananda Kumar, Counsel for the respondent however invites my attention to the licence submitted by the petitioner and contends that the said licence cannot be treated as licence in terms of Clause 36 of the tender condition. I am unable to accept this submission for the simple reason that the tender condition is silent with regard to the type of licence required to be submitted by a tenderer. The expression "meat" has not been defined anywhere in the tender conditions.
Counsel further contended that the meat licence is not beef licence.
The dictionary meaning of the word ''meat'' in terms of Webster''s New International Dictionary is as under:
" "Meat" - flesh of animals used as food as distinguished from fish or fowl".
The dictionary meaning of the word "meat" as per the Universal Dictionary of the English Language compiled by Henry Cecil Wyld is one which reads as under:
" "Meat" - food, flesh of animals used as food".
The Universal Dictionary published by Readers Digest, New York reads:
"Meat" as a (i) edible flesh of mammals, as distinguished from that of fish or poultry; (ii) edible flesh including poultry and fish and shellfish, crab meat.
The dictionary meaning of beef is (i) flesh of slaughtered full bull, or cow; (ii) a full grown bull, ox or cow especially one intended for use as meat. "Meat" is a generic term of edible flesh which includes beef. In the light of this dictionary meaning I am of the view that beef is includible in the word "meat". Therefore, in the absence of any requirement of a separate licence for beef and in the light of production of a meat licence by the petitioner which includes beef, the contention that petitioner has no licence as on today cannot be accepted.
In somewhat identical circumstances a Division Bench of Bombay High Court in the case of The Collector of Sales Tax, Bombay State Vs. Gaurimal Mahajan and Sons, , has considered the question as to whether the sale of "dressed poultry" can be regarded as sale of meat. The Division Bench observed:
"The argument of the sales tax department is that meat, which is understood as such in common parlance, would undoubtedly be excluded from the operation of the taxing provisions of the Act (that is, the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1946), but dressed poultry will not be deemed to be so excluded because it is not meat in ordinary parlance. The expression "meat" has not been defined in the Sales Tax Act. The Webster''s New International Dictionary gives the equivalent of meat as ''flesh of animals used as food, as distinguished from fish or fowl''. Undoubtedly in common parlance and even commercially, meat means flesh of cattle, swine, sheep, goats, etc., and may not include dressed poultry, but the expression "meat" in its wider connotation does include dressed poultry. When the legislature has sought to exclude from liability to pay sales tax practically all materials which are normally used as foodstuffs or condiments for seasoning foodstuffs, we must require very strong indication to the contrary to fortify us in holding that poultry, which is a recognised food, is not included in the expression "meat". Fish is exempt from payment of sales tax; similarly fresh eggs are exempt from payment of tax; and if the expression "meat" in its wider connotation includes dressed poultry, we see no reason, looking to the context in which the word is used, for holding that it is not used in its wider connotation in Entry No. 4 of the Second Schedule to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1946".
The Calcutta High Court in a subsequent judgment in Aloke Chand Mitra Vs. The State of West Bengal and Others, , followed the decision of the Bombay High Court.
In the light of the dictionary meaning and in the light of the two decisions I have no hesitation in holding that the "meat" licence submitted by the petitioner includes beef sale. The contention of the contesting respondent is not acceptable to me. In these circumstances Annexure-B is set aside. A direction is issued to the respondents to reconsider the entire matter in accordance with law and in accordance with the observation made in the course of this order.
Parties to bear their own costs.