Mukesh Kumar Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- motor vehicles act, 1988[c.a.no.59/1988] section 166; [a.k. patnaik, cj, a.k. gohil & s. samvatsar, jj] application for compensation for personal injury death of injured claimant subsequently for some other reasons held, claim for personal injury will abate on the death of claimant. claim will not survive to his legal representative except as regards claim for pecuniary loss to estate of claimant. - such decision shall be communicated effectively to the petitioner.orderd.g.r. patnaik, j.1. prayer in this writ application is for a direction to the respondents to enquire into and consider the case of the petitioner on the basis of the tender submitted by him for the supply of food-grains to the central/divisional sub-jail, bokaro.2. the petitioner's case is that in response to an invitation for tender published by the respondent authorities, the petitioner had submitted his tender for the supply of food-grains to the jail. after receipt of the tenders from the petitioner as also from several other applicants, the respondents had refused to open the petitioner's tender and after assessing the tenders of others, allotted the work to another person. on the demand of the petitioner, the respondents issued a letter (annexure-5) stating the reasons for refusal to accept and open his tender.3. according to learned counsel for the petitioner, the sole reason stated by the respondents is that the petitioner's father is an employee of the jail and presently posted at the jail at lohardaga. learned counsel submits that the stand taken by the respondents for rejecting the petitioner's claim is totally misconceived and as a matter of fact, the reasons referred to on the basis of which this stand has been taken appears to have been based on misinterpretation of the rules. referring to and relying upon a division bench judgment of the patna high court (ranchi bench) in the case of sachidanand singh v. state of bihar in cwjc no. 493 of 1997 (r), learned counsel submits that the mere fact that relative of the claimant happens to be an employee of a jail does not ipso facto debar him from entering into a contract for supply of the food-grains in jail. if the relationship of the person with the jail employee is considered to be an obstruction, an opportunity should be given to the person to establish that he has no concern whatsoever with the jail employee. learned counsel explains further that in the instant case, the petitioner had submitted sufficient documents including character certificate issued by competent authority in favour of the petitioner to confirm that though he happens to be the son of the jail employee, but he has no concern with his father and that he has his own separate business unconnected with his father.4. learned counsel for the respondent state is present. though no counter-affidavit has been filed but learned counsel would refer to the letter (annexure-5) containing the objections taken by the jail authorities. learned counsel submits that admittedly the petitioner's father is an employee of the jail and embargo under rule 159 of the jail manual categorically prohibits the engaging of any person in any contract work where any relative of such person is an employee of the jail. learned counsel submits further that the documents furnished by the petitioner were enquired into and it was found that the petitioner has been living as a member of the joint family in the same house with his father and it is apparent from this fact that the father being a jail employee, has an indirect interest in the business venture of the son namely the petitioner and such being the fact the petitioner cannot be allowed to enter into any contract for the supply of articles in the jail.5. admittedly, the petitioner's father is an employee of the jail and is presently posted at lohardaga jail. the petitioner had submitted his tender in response to the notice inviting tender for supply of articles, including food-grains, to the jail at bokaro. the stand taken by the respondent is that rule 159 of the jail manual would not allow the respondent jail authorities to offer any contract to the petitioner in view of the fact that petitioner's father is an employee of the jail.it also appears that the petitioner has taken a definite stand that he is living separate both in mess and residence from his father and has no concern whatsoever with his father.6. no doubt rule 159 of the jail manual prohibits any officer of the jail either directly or through any person in trust for or employed by him, having any interest direct or indirect in any contract for the supply of any jail articles. in the present case, the stand taken by the respondents is that the petitioner being the son of the jail employee, his father has a definite interest, though indirectly, in the contract for the supply of articles to the jail. such a view has apparently been taken by the respondent authorities by way of presumption and not after making any enquiry and offering opportunity to the petitioner in any such enquiry to establish his stand. the respondents cannot therefore, refuse the petitioner to participate in any tender merely on the ground that his father is a jail employee, unless an opportunity is given to the petitioner to establish that his father, even though a jail employee, does not have any interest either direct or indirect in the business venture of the petitioner.7. considering the above facts and circumstances, the respondent authorities are directed to reconsider the petitioner's claim and after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to explain and establish his stand, shall take an appropriate decision in accordance with law and pass a reasoned and speaking order. such decision shall be communicated effectively to the petitioner.with these observations, this writ application is disposed of.let a copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the respondent state.

Judgment:
ORDER

D.G.R. Patnaik, J.

1. Prayer in this writ application is for a direction to the respondents to enquire into and consider the case of the petitioner on the basis of the tender submitted by him for the supply of food-grains to the Central/Divisional Sub-Jail, Bokaro.

2. The petitioner's case is that in response to an invitation for tender published by the respondent authorities, the petitioner had submitted his tender for the supply of food-grains to the jail. After receipt of the tenders from the petitioner as also from several other applicants, the respondents had refused to open the petitioner's tender and after assessing the tenders of others, allotted the work to another person. On the demand of the petitioner, the respondents issued a letter (Annexure-5) stating the reasons for refusal to accept and open his tender.

3. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, the sole reason stated by the respondents is that the petitioner's father is an employee of the jail and presently posted at the jail at Lohardaga. Learned Counsel submits that the stand taken by the respondents for rejecting the petitioner's claim is totally misconceived and as a matter of fact, the reasons referred to on the basis of which this stand has been taken appears to have been based on misinterpretation of the Rules. Referring to and relying upon a Division Bench Judgment of the Patna High Court (Ranchi Bench) in the case of Sachidanand Singh v. State of Bihar in CWJC No. 493 of 1997 (R), learned Counsel submits that the mere fact that relative of the claimant happens to be an employee of a Jail does not ipso facto debar him from entering into a contract for supply of the food-grains in Jail. If the relationship of the person with the jail employee is considered to be an obstruction, an opportunity should be given to the person to establish that he has no concern whatsoever with the jail employee. Learned Counsel explains further that in the instant case, the petitioner had submitted sufficient documents including Character Certificate issued by competent authority in favour of the petitioner to confirm that though he happens to be the son of the jail employee, but he has no concern with his father and that he has his own separate business unconnected with his father.

4. Learned Counsel for the respondent State is present. Though no counter-affidavit has been filed but learned Counsel would refer to the letter (Annexure-5) containing the objections taken by the jail authorities. Learned Counsel submits that admittedly the petitioner's father is an employee of the jail and embargo under Rule 159 of the Jail Manual categorically prohibits the engaging of any person in any contract work where any relative of such person is an employee of the Jail. Learned Counsel submits further that the documents furnished by the petitioner were enquired into and it was found that the petitioner has been living as a member of the joint family in the same house with his father and it Is apparent from this fact that the father being a jail employee, has an indirect interest in the business venture of the son namely the petitioner and such being the fact the petitioner cannot be allowed to enter into any contract for the supply of articles in the jail.

5. Admittedly, the petitioner's father is an employee of the jail and is presently posted at Lohardaga Jail. The petitioner had submitted his tender in response to the notice inviting tender for supply of articles, including food-grains, to the jail at Bokaro. The stand taken by the respondent is that Rule 159 of the Jail Manual would not allow the respondent jail authorities to offer any contract to the petitioner in view of the fact that petitioner's father is an employee of the jail.

It also appears that the petitioner has taken a definite stand that he Is living separate both in mess and residence from his father and has no concern whatsoever with his father.

6. No doubt Rule 159 of the Jail Manual prohibits any officer of the jail either directly or through any person in trust for or employed by him, having any interest direct or indirect in any contract for the supply of any jail articles. In the present case, the stand taken by the respondents is that the petitioner being the son of the jail employee, his father has a definite interest, though indirectly, in the contract for the supply of articles to the jail. Such a view has apparently been taken by the respondent authorities by way of presumption and not after making any enquiry and offering opportunity to the petitioner in any such enquiry to establish his stand. The respondents cannot therefore, refuse the petitioner to participate in any tender merely on the ground that his father is a jail employee, unless an opportunity is given to the petitioner to establish that his father, even though a jail employee, does not have any interest either direct or indirect in the business venture of the petitioner.

7. Considering the above facts and circumstances, the respondent authorities are directed to reconsider the petitioner's claim and after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to explain and establish his stand, shall take an appropriate decision in accordance with law and pass a reasoned and speaking order. Such decision shall be communicated effectively to the petitioner.

With these observations, this writ application is disposed of.

Let a copy of this order be given to the learned Counsel for the respondent State.