Dismissed

Prashant Bagla v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC4 Jun 2019CWJC/7816/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the Corporation's refusal to approve his engagement as a transportation agent, arguing for a three-year tenure from agreement date. The High Court upheld the refusal, noting agreements were limited to March 31, 2019. Petitioner was granted liberty to seek pending bill payments.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing refused; liberty granted to request payment of pending transportation bills within two months if any admitted amount is due.

Prashant Bagla Vs The State of Bihar — Service and Employment | Patna HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7816 of 2019

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Prashant Bagla Son of Late Shiv Kumar Bagla, Resident of Old Exchange Road, Ward No.10, P.S.- Sitamarhi, District- Sitamarhi.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar through Chief Secretary, Bihar, Patna.

¶7

The District Magistrate, cum Chairman Selection Transport Committee, Sitamarhi.

¶8

The Managing Director, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Bihar, Patna.

¶9

The General Manager, Public Distribution, Corporation Head Quarter, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Bihar, Patna.

¶10

The Deputy Chief Transportation, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Bihar, Patna.

¶11

The District Manager, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation, Sitamarhi.

¶12

... ... Respondent/s

¶13

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Shashi Bhushan Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr.Upendra Pratap Singh AC to SC-4 For the BSFC : Mr.Sanjay Prasad, AC to Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh

¶14

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER

¶15

2 04-06-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel representing the State and learned counsel representing the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Corporation’).

¶16

Petitioner in the present case has challenged the communication as contained in letter no. 2817 dated 07.03.2019 issued under the signature of the General Manager, Corporation Headquarter, Public Distribution, BSFC, Patna to the District

¶17

Patna High Court CWJC No.7816 of 2019(2) dt.04-06-2019 2/8

¶18

Manager, BSFC, Sitamarhi. By this communication the General Manager has modified the letter no. 2591 dated 01.03.2018 by which according to the petitioner approval of the decision of the District Transport Committee, Sitamarhi to engage the petitioner as a transportation agent has been cancelled.

¶19

The facts of the case are not in dispute. The petitioner admits that pursuant to the tender notice as contained in Annexure ‘1’ to the writ application the petitioner had participated for his empannelment/selection as a transportation cum handling agent for transportation of the foodgrains from FCI depot to the godowns of the Corporation.

¶20

Clause 11 of the tender notice as contained in Annexre

¶21

‘1’ reads as under :-

¶22

11- ,djkjukek 03 foRrh; o’kZ ds fy, ¼fnukad 31-032019 rd½ ds fy, fd;k tk,xk] fdUrq dk;Z esa vlQy gksus ;k dk;Z larks’ktud ugha gksus dh fLFkfr esa ,djkjukek le; ls iwoZ Hkh jn~n fd;k tk ldsxk A

¶23

Further, on perusal of the letter dated 01.08.2016 which is part of the Annexure ‘3’ to the writ application, it would appear that the Managing Director of the Corporation had made it clear to all the District Managers of the Corporation that the selected transportation agents would work for three financial years up-to 31.03.2019. Annexure ‘1’ as well as Annexure ‘3’ contained specific recital showing that the validity of the

¶24

Patna High Court CWJC No.7816 of 2019(2) dt.04-06-2019 3/8

¶25

selection/appointment/agreement period would be up-to 31.03.2019.

¶26

So far as this petitioner is concerned, it is not in dispute that initially he was kept in the waiting list because against the three vacancies he could not be engaged at the initial stage and as per policy decision, he remained waiting for availability of work subject to the conditions. Later on, the petitioner was allowed to work pursuant to the decision taken by the District Officer cum District Transport Committee in its meeting held on 20.06.2018. The work allotted to the petitioner was subjected to challenge by one M/s. Rajendra Singh and others and Sri Anil Kumar, the Chief Transportation cum handling agent.

¶27

The work allotted to the petitioner was thereafter stopped by the head office of the Corporation vide letter no. 7276 dated 18.07.2018. Against this, the petitioner had moved this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 17048 of 2018 in which the stay order against the work order allotted to the petitioner was quashed. After the order of the Court the District Officer of the Corporation, Sitamarhi proceeded to consider the engagement of the petitioner and in the meeting held on 14.02.2019, the District Transportation Committee decided to engage the

¶28

Patna High Court CWJC No.7816 of 2019(2) dt.04-06-2019 4/8

¶29

services of the petitioner subject to approval of the head quarter of the Corporation. These facts may be found mentioned in Annexure ‘23’ dated 14.02.2019 enclosed with the writ application.

¶30

It appears from perusal of Annexure ‘25’ to the writ application that on 01.03.2019 the Head Office of the Corporation communicated the District Manager of the Corporation, Sitamarhi that with regard to the decision taken to engage the petitioner who was in the waiting list of the year 2016, the period of three years would be applicable. This was taken as an approval of the decision of the District Transportation Committee taken on 14.02.2019.

¶31

Subsequently vide Annexure ‘26’ dated 07.03.2019 the General Manager, Public Distribution of the Corporation, wrote to the District Manager of the Corporation, Sitamarhi in which he clarified his earlier letter dated 01.03.2019. In Annexure ‘26’ the decision taken by the District Transportation Committee on 14.02.2019 to engage the petitioner was not approved for the reasons stated in the letter. In order to make the reasons for rejection clear, this Court would quote the relevant part of the letter dated 07.03.2019 (Annexure ‘26’) reads as under :-

¶32

^^egk”k;]

¶33

Patna High Court CWJC No.7816 of 2019(2) dt.04-06-2019

¶34

5/8

¶35

funs”kkuqlkj mi;qZDr fo’k;d izlaxk/khu i= ds laca/k esa iqu% Li’V djuk gS fd jktLo ftyk] lhrke<+h esa o’kZ&2016 ds izrh{kk lwph ls o’kZ&2019 esa ftyk ifjogu lfefr }kjk p;u gsrq dh x;h vuq”kalk fu;ekuqdwy ugha gSA KkrO; gks fd fuxe eq[;ky; ds i=kad&2649 fnukad & 16-03-18 }kjk ifjogu uhfr&2018 fnukad & 01-042018 ls laiw.kZ fcgkj esa ykxw dh x;h gS ,oa fuxe eq[;ky; ds i=kad & 2712 fnukad & 17-03-18 }kjk lHkh ftyk izca/kd] fcgkj dks funsf”kr fd;k x;k Fkk fd iwoZ ls izdkf”kr fufonk dk fu’iknu fnukad & 31-03-18 rd fuf”pr :i ls djk fy;k tk; D;ksafd fnukad & 01-0418 ds mijkar ifjogu vfHkdrkZ dk p;u fcgkj jkT; [kk| ,oa vlSfud vkiwfrZ fuxe ifjogu uhfr & 2018 ds vkyksd esa gh fd;k tkuk gSA mDr funs”k ds ckotwn Hkh ftyk ifjogu lfefr] lhrke<+h }kjk fufonk 2016 dh ifjogu&lg&gFkkyu vfHkdrkZ ¼eq[;½ dh izrh{kk lwph ls Jh iz”kkar ckxyk dks dk;Z gsrq o’kZ & 2019 esa p;fur fd;k x;k gS tks fuxr eq[;ky; ds i=kad & 2712 fnukad & 17-03-18 ds izfrdwy gSA

¶36

vr% mDr of.kZr izko/kku ds rg~r ftyk ifjogu lfefr] lhrke<+h }kjk fufonk 2016 dh ifjogu&lg&gFkkyu vfHkdrkZ ¼eq[;½ dh izrh{kk lwph ls Jh iz”kkar ckxyk dks dk;Z gsrq o’kZ&2019 esa dh x;h vuq”kalk vuqeksnu ;ksX; ugha gSA

¶37

fuxe eq[;ky; ds i=kad&2591 fnukad&01-03-19 dks mijksDr funs”k ds vkyksd esa la”kksf/kr le>k tk;A**

¶38

It is in the aforesaid background that the petitioner has moved this Court challenging the communication as contained in Annexure ‘26’. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that the three years period for which the petitioner should be engaged as a transportation agent must be counted from the date of execution of the agreement with the petitioner. It is submitted that once the agreement has been executed, the petitioner has acquired a right to continue for a period of three years from the date of such agreement.

¶39

Patna High Court CWJC No.7816 of 2019(2) dt.04-06-2019 6/8

¶40

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner has been opposed on behalf of the Corporation. Learned counsel for the Corporation submits that on bare perusal of Annexure ‘1’ and ‘3’ it would appear that the three years period has a limitation up-to 31.03.2019. According to him, the date on which the agreement has been entered into is totally irrelevant as in no case the agreement may continue beyond 31.03.2019.

¶41

It is also submitted that now the Corporation has come out with a policy document and the policy decision dated 16.03.2018 provides that appointment of transportation cum handling agent is to be done through e-tender process. According to him, the petitioner cannot be allowed to continue in the given facts and circumstances.

¶42

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records, this Court finds that in Annexure ‘1’ and ‘3’ to the writ application it is clearly provided that the agreement will be for three years up-to 31.03.2019. Apparently the tender notice which was published in the year 2016 talks of three financial year up-to 31.03.2019. The petitioner was in the waiting list and in no case a decision to engage in the transportation work may be taken for the period beyond 31.03.2019. Doing so would amount to extending/modifying the

¶43

Patna High Court CWJC No.7816 of 2019(2) dt.04-06-2019 7/8

¶44

terms and conditions of the tender notice and it would raise a question of level playing field being discriminately used by the authorities of the District Transportation Committee. Those who had participated in the tender were fully aware of the period for which the transportation work may be made available to them. This Court also finds force in the submission of learned counsel for the Corporation saying that in terms of new policy decision dated 16.03.2019 now the appointment of transportation cum handling agent is to be done through e-tender process.

¶45

For the reasons aforementioned, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the communication as contained in letter no. 2817 dated 07.03.2019 (Annexure ‘26’ to the writ application).

¶46

So far as prayer for quashing of the communication as contained in letter no. 2817 dated 07.03.2019 is concerned, the same is hereby refused.

¶47

The petitioner has invited the attention of this court towards the prayer made in the writ application for a direction to the respondents to pay the transportation bill of the petitioner against the work done after agreement. The petitioner is given liberty to make an appropriate request before the Managing Director of the Corporation for payment of the pending bills if

¶48

Patna High Court CWJC No.7816 of 2019(2) dt.04-06-2019 8/8

¶49

any and if such request is made, the Managing Director shall look into the request of the petitioner and will take an appropriate decision thereon and any admitted amount payable to the petitioner shall be paid within the period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

¶50

The writ application stands disposed off accordingly.

¶51

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)

¶52

avin/-ved

¶53

Prashant Bagla v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prashant Bagla v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chanda Devi @ Chanda Kumari Vs The State of Bihar

Indra Kumar Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar (and Ors)

Ram Lakhan Prasad Gupta Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

M/s Gleen Medicos Vs The State of Bihar

M/s Aditya Enterprises Vs The Union of India

M/S Ashu Noodles Enterprises Vs Allahabad Bank through its Chairman