Adhir Ghosh Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.

Decided On : May-15-1998

Court : Kolkata

Notice (8): Undefined index: topics [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36]
Code Context


$shops2 = $shops['topics'];
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Adhir Ghosh Vs. State of West Bengal and ors. Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'LAW' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'the Criminal Procedure Code''
		),
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Barin Ghosh',
			(int) 1 => 'Nos',
			(int) 2 => 'Nos',
			(int) 3 => 'Nos',
			(int) 4 => 'Nos',
			(int) 5 => 'Nos'
		),
		'NORP' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'J.1'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Malda',
			(int) 1 => 'the District Hospital',
			(int) 2 => 'Malda',
			(int) 3 => 'the District Diet Committee',
			(int) 4 => 'the District Diet Committee',
			(int) 5 => 'the District Hospital',
			(int) 6 => 'Malda',
			(int) 7 => 'Malda',
			(int) 8 => 'District Hospital',
			(int) 9 => 'Malda',
			(int) 10 => 'the District Hospital',
			(int) 11 => 'Malda',
			(int) 12 => 'State',
			(int) 13 => 'Court',
			(int) 14 => 'the State Government',
			(int) 15 => 'theState Government's',
			(int) 16 => 'theState Government',
			(int) 17 => 'State',
			(int) 18 => 'State',
			(int) 19 => 'State',
			(int) 20 => 'Court',
			(int) 21 => 'Court',
			(int) 22 => 'Senior Standing Counsel',
			(int) 23 => 'Senior Standing Counsel',
			(int) 24 => 'State',
			(int) 25 => 'The District Magistrate',
			(int) 26 => 'District Diet Committee',
			(int) 27 => 'the District Hospital',
			(int) 28 => 'Malda',
			(int) 29 => 'the District Hospital',
			(int) 30 => 'Malda',
			(int) 31 => 'Vigilance Department'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => '2424',
			(int) 1 => '23rd September, 1987',
			(int) 2 => '28-10-97',
			(int) 3 => '8',
			(int) 4 => '1997',
			(int) 5 => '8',
			(int) 6 => '8',
			(int) 7 => '8',
			(int) 8 => '8',
			(int) 9 => '8',
			(int) 10 => '6 weeks',
			(int) 11 => '8',
			(int) 12 => ''1973'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => '31',
			(int) 1 => '29',
			(int) 2 => '9',
			(int) 3 => 'six',
			(int) 4 => '23629(W',
			(int) 5 => '9',
			(int) 6 => '4-3-1998',
			(int) 7 => 'one',
			(int) 8 => 'two',
			(int) 9 => '9',
			(int) 10 => '9',
			(int) 11 => '9',
			(int) 12 => '9',
			(int) 13 => '9',
			(int) 14 => '14'
		),
		'GPE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'the District of Malda',
			(int) 1 => 'Haldia',
			(int) 2 => 'West Bengal'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '875432',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 14',
			'appealno' => 'M.A.T. No. 912 of 1998',
			'appellant' => 'Adhir Ghosh',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Adhir Ghosh Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Asoke Banerjee and ;Sarajit Sen, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'Samar Dutta, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Kolkata',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1998-05-15',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Prabha Shankar Mishra, C.J. and ;Barin Ghosh, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Barin Ghosh, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The Chief Medical Officer of Health, Malda, published a tender notice bearing No. 2424 dated 23rd September, 1987, inviting tender for supply of dietary articles to the District Hospital, Malda and to other hospitals in the same District for the period 1-11-97 or any subsequent date till 31-10-98.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The said tender contained a clause to the effect that the District Diet Committee reserves the right to reject tender without assigning any reason and the decision of the District Diet Committee will be final.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner/appellant participated in the said tender in respect of supply of all dietary articles except milk to the District Hospital, Malda 'only.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. On 28-10-97 the tenders were openedwhen rates quoted by different tenderers were not declared. However, on 29-10-97 Chief Medical Officer of Health, Malda, hung up a list of selected tenderers for supply of dietary articles indifferent hospitals in the District of Malda including District Hospital, Malda, furnishing therein the accepted rates.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. That list disclosed that the tender of the petitioner/appellant has been rejected and the tender of the private respondents No. 7, 8 and 9 have been accepted at a higher rate than those given by the petitioner/appellant for supplies tobe effected to the District Hospital, Malda. Itfurther revealed that the tenders given by others at the same rate that of the petitioner/appellant had been accepted for the supplies to be effected to six other hospitals. It further disclosed that even lower rates have been accepted for supplies to be effected to many other hospitals in theDistrict.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Hence by filing Writ Petition No. 23629(W) of 1997 the petitioner/appellant contended that rejection of lower rate offered by 'him and acceptance, of higher rate offered by the private respondents No. 7, 8 and 9 is arbitrary, opposed to public policy and contrary to the financial interest of the State and thus, illegal. A learned single Judge of this Court by order dated 4-3-1998, impugned herein, rejected the writ petition Holding as follows :--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'I find there js nothing illegality and/or arbitrariness on the part of the State Government in rejecting the offer of the writ petitioner, being guided by the terms and conditions mentioned in the fender-forms. The learned senior standingcounsel is right in saying that the writ petitioner cannot be allowed to question after havingaccepted the terms and conditions mentioned inthe tender notice after having been unsuccessful.I find there is no challenge whatsoever as againstthose terms and conditions, which enjoined theState Government's right to reject any offerwithout, assigning any, reason and further rightnot to accept any offer quoting below thescheduled rate. So I hold that this action of theState Government rejecting the offer of the writpetitioner is perfectly justified and lawful.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. A State or an instrumentality of State whenmaking purchases purchases, not for profit motive, is obligedto purchase at the most beneficial terms sincesuch purchases are made out of the public fundand for the benefit of the public. The most beneficial terms will also include most beneficial rate, but that is not, in all cases, the one and the only consideration. If a public authority is of the opinion that a supplier, who has quoted a lower rate, cannot supply standard materials, may reject the tender submitted by such supplier and more so when such supplies arc dietary products for patients of public hospitals. There may be various other technical reasons for not accepting an offer of a lower rate.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. When a public tender is floated, it is expected that a large number of members of the public will participate in such tender. While one or two tenders of such large number of participants will be accepted, the rest will be rejected. The rejection will be higher than acceptances. The authority concerned would be required to apply its mind for the purpose of acceptance as well as rejection. The number of rejection being large in number and may be based on different considerations, if till the rejects are required to be given reasons for each individual rejection, then that would unnecessarily delve into the public time of the public officers. Therefore, a clause contained in a tender that tenders may be rejected without assigning any reason is neither illegal, nor opposed to public policy, since there is a presumption that an act done by a, public officer is fair, reasonable and above-board.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. But when such fairness is challenged by way of judicial review and it is shown prima facie that there is reasonable doubt in regard to such fairness, as has been shown in the instant case that the State has preferred to spend more public fund, then it becomes the duty of the public authority to place before the Court the reasons for such preference.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. No such reason has been placed before the trial Court by the respondent-authorities. We, therefore, gave a further opportunity to furnish such reasons. The learned Senior Standing Counsel confessed before us that no reason has been recorded for rejecting the offer of the petitioner/appellant though the same was lower than the offers of the private respondents Nos. 7, 8 and 9, which have been accepted. We then asked the learned Senior Standing Counsel whether, despite not having recorded any reason, his clients can furnish any reason for rejecting the lower rate offered by the petitioner/appellant, towhich, the answer was in the negative.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Therefore, there cannot any doubt that the respondents in the matter of preferring the private respondents Nos. 7, 8 and 9 not only shun their public duty of spending less public fund for obtaining same benefit, hut also acted unreasonably and arbitrarily.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. If that is the finding, then selection of theprivate respondents Nos. 7, 8 and 9 and acceptance of their tender is per se illegal. But the larger question is why that was done? No justification, therefore, is forthcoming. Can we leave the matter there? We do not think so. If we do that and simply declare that the selection and acceptance so made were illegal, then that would permit the person responsible, who has shattered the public presumption of impartiality, reasonableness and fair play of a public officer discharging public duty, to go scot-free and in that we shall also be neglecting our public duly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the order impugned herein and disposed of the writ petition with the following directions :--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) It is declared that the acceptance of the tenders of the private respondents Nos. 7, 8 and 9 by the State-respondents is illegal and accordingly payments to be made to them for the supplies, if any, effected by them should be on quantum meruit. The District Magistrate, Haldia, being an the ex-officio Chairman of the said District Diet Committee shall be entitled to obtain supply of dietary materials for the District Hospital, Malda until a tender is finalised in terms of this order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) The respondents shall forthwith take steps to invite fresh tender for supply of dietory materials to the District Hospital, Malda and shall be obliged to finalise the same within a period of 6 weeks from the dale hereof.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iii) The Inspector General of Police, West Bengal, himself or through any other competent officer, not below the rank of Deputy Inspector General of Police, to be nominated by him shall forthwith take steps to investigate as to why without any reason the higher rate offered by the private respondents Nos. 7, 8 and 9 was accepted in relation to the subject tender and if on such investigation it transpires that any public officer for his own personal benefit had shun his public duty, shall immediately lodged a complaint under the Criminal Procedure Code', '1973 and forwardhis report to the appropriate Vigilance Department for taking appropriate steps against the erring officer. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. This disposes of the appeal as well as the writ petition. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1998Cal317',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of West Bengal and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Contract',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '875432'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Adhir Ghosh Vs. State of West Bengal and ors. Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'LAW' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'the Criminal Procedure Code''
	),
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Barin Ghosh',
		(int) 1 => 'Nos',
		(int) 2 => 'Nos',
		(int) 3 => 'Nos',
		(int) 4 => 'Nos',
		(int) 5 => 'Nos'
	),
	'NORP' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'J.1'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Malda',
		(int) 1 => 'the District Hospital',
		(int) 2 => 'Malda',
		(int) 3 => 'the District Diet Committee',
		(int) 4 => 'the District Diet Committee',
		(int) 5 => 'the District Hospital',
		(int) 6 => 'Malda',
		(int) 7 => 'Malda',
		(int) 8 => 'District Hospital',
		(int) 9 => 'Malda',
		(int) 10 => 'the District Hospital',
		(int) 11 => 'Malda',
		(int) 12 => 'State',
		(int) 13 => 'Court',
		(int) 14 => 'the State Government',
		(int) 15 => 'theState Government's',
		(int) 16 => 'theState Government',
		(int) 17 => 'State',
		(int) 18 => 'State',
		(int) 19 => 'State',
		(int) 20 => 'Court',
		(int) 21 => 'Court',
		(int) 22 => 'Senior Standing Counsel',
		(int) 23 => 'Senior Standing Counsel',
		(int) 24 => 'State',
		(int) 25 => 'The District Magistrate',
		(int) 26 => 'District Diet Committee',
		(int) 27 => 'the District Hospital',
		(int) 28 => 'Malda',
		(int) 29 => 'the District Hospital',
		(int) 30 => 'Malda',
		(int) 31 => 'Vigilance Department'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => '2424',
		(int) 1 => '23rd September, 1987',
		(int) 2 => '28-10-97',
		(int) 3 => '8',
		(int) 4 => '1997',
		(int) 5 => '8',
		(int) 6 => '8',
		(int) 7 => '8',
		(int) 8 => '8',
		(int) 9 => '8',
		(int) 10 => '6 weeks',
		(int) 11 => '8',
		(int) 12 => ''1973'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => '31',
		(int) 1 => '29',
		(int) 2 => '9',
		(int) 3 => 'six',
		(int) 4 => '23629(W',
		(int) 5 => '9',
		(int) 6 => '4-3-1998',
		(int) 7 => 'one',
		(int) 8 => 'two',
		(int) 9 => '9',
		(int) 10 => '9',
		(int) 11 => '9',
		(int) 12 => '9',
		(int) 13 => '9',
		(int) 14 => '14'
	),
	'GPE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'the District of Malda',
		(int) 1 => 'Haldia',
		(int) 2 => 'West Bengal'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '875432',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 14',
		'appealno' => 'M.A.T. No. 912 of 1998',
		'appellant' => 'Adhir Ghosh',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Adhir Ghosh Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Asoke Banerjee and ;Sarajit Sen, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'Samar Dutta, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Kolkata',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1998-05-15',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Prabha Shankar Mishra, C.J. and ;Barin Ghosh, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Barin Ghosh, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The Chief Medical Officer of Health, Malda, published a tender notice bearing No. 2424 dated 23rd September, 1987, inviting tender for supply of dietary articles to the District Hospital, Malda and to other hospitals in the same District for the period 1-11-97 or any subsequent date till 31-10-98.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The said tender contained a clause to the effect that the District Diet Committee reserves the right to reject tender without assigning any reason and the decision of the District Diet Committee will be final.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner/appellant participated in the said tender in respect of supply of all dietary articles except milk to the District Hospital, Malda 'only.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. On 28-10-97 the tenders were openedwhen rates quoted by different tenderers were not declared. However, on 29-10-97 Chief Medical Officer of Health, Malda, hung up a list of selected tenderers for supply of dietary articles indifferent hospitals in the District of Malda including District Hospital, Malda, furnishing therein the accepted rates.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. That list disclosed that the tender of the petitioner/appellant has been rejected and the tender of the private respondents No. 7, 8 and 9 have been accepted at a higher rate than those given by the petitioner/appellant for supplies tobe effected to the District Hospital, Malda. Itfurther revealed that the tenders given by others at the same rate that of the petitioner/appellant had been accepted for the supplies to be effected to six other hospitals. It further disclosed that even lower rates have been accepted for supplies to be effected to many other hospitals in theDistrict.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Hence by filing Writ Petition No. 23629(W) of 1997 the petitioner/appellant contended that rejection of lower rate offered by 'him and acceptance, of higher rate offered by the private respondents No. 7, 8 and 9 is arbitrary, opposed to public policy and contrary to the financial interest of the State and thus, illegal. A learned single Judge of this Court by order dated 4-3-1998, impugned herein, rejected the writ petition Holding as follows :--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'I find there js nothing illegality and/or arbitrariness on the part of the State Government in rejecting the offer of the writ petitioner, being guided by the terms and conditions mentioned in the fender-forms. The learned senior standingcounsel is right in saying that the writ petitioner cannot be allowed to question after havingaccepted the terms and conditions mentioned inthe tender notice after having been unsuccessful.I find there is no challenge whatsoever as againstthose terms and conditions, which enjoined theState Government's right to reject any offerwithout, assigning any, reason and further rightnot to accept any offer quoting below thescheduled rate. So I hold that this action of theState Government rejecting the offer of the writpetitioner is perfectly justified and lawful.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. A State or an instrumentality of State whenmaking purchases purchases, not for profit motive, is obligedto purchase at the most beneficial terms sincesuch purchases are made out of the public fundand for the benefit of the public. The most beneficial terms will also include most beneficial rate, but that is not, in all cases, the one and the only consideration. If a public authority is of the opinion that a supplier, who has quoted a lower rate, cannot supply standard materials, may reject the tender submitted by such supplier and more so when such supplies arc dietary products for patients of public hospitals. There may be various other technical reasons for not accepting an offer of a lower rate.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. When a public tender is floated, it is expected that a large number of members of the public will participate in such tender. While one or two tenders of such large number of participants will be accepted, the rest will be rejected. The rejection will be higher than acceptances. The authority concerned would be required to apply its mind for the purpose of acceptance as well as rejection. The number of rejection being large in number and may be based on different considerations, if till the rejects are required to be given reasons for each individual rejection, then that would unnecessarily delve into the public time of the public officers. Therefore, a clause contained in a tender that tenders may be rejected without assigning any reason is neither illegal, nor opposed to public policy, since there is a presumption that an act done by a, public officer is fair, reasonable and above-board.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. But when such fairness is challenged by way of judicial review and it is shown prima facie that there is reasonable doubt in regard to such fairness, as has been shown in the instant case that the State has preferred to spend more public fund, then it becomes the duty of the public authority to place before the Court the reasons for such preference.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. No such reason has been placed before the trial Court by the respondent-authorities. We, therefore, gave a further opportunity to furnish such reasons. The learned Senior Standing Counsel confessed before us that no reason has been recorded for rejecting the offer of the petitioner/appellant though the same was lower than the offers of the private respondents Nos. 7, 8 and 9, which have been accepted. We then asked the learned Senior Standing Counsel whether, despite not having recorded any reason, his clients can furnish any reason for rejecting the lower rate offered by the petitioner/appellant, towhich, the answer was in the negative.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Therefore, there cannot any doubt that the respondents in the matter of preferring the private respondents Nos. 7, 8 and 9 not only shun their public duty of spending less public fund for obtaining same benefit, hut also acted unreasonably and arbitrarily.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. If that is the finding, then selection of theprivate respondents Nos. 7, 8 and 9 and acceptance of their tender is per se illegal. But the larger question is why that was done? No justification, therefore, is forthcoming. Can we leave the matter there? We do not think so. If we do that and simply declare that the selection and acceptance so made were illegal, then that would permit the person responsible, who has shattered the public presumption of impartiality, reasonableness and fair play of a public officer discharging public duty, to go scot-free and in that we shall also be neglecting our public duly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the order impugned herein and disposed of the writ petition with the following directions :--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) It is declared that the acceptance of the tenders of the private respondents Nos. 7, 8 and 9 by the State-respondents is illegal and accordingly payments to be made to them for the supplies, if any, effected by them should be on quantum meruit. The District Magistrate, Haldia, being an the ex-officio Chairman of the said District Diet Committee shall be entitled to obtain supply of dietary materials for the District Hospital, Malda until a tender is finalised in terms of this order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) The respondents shall forthwith take steps to invite fresh tender for supply of dietory materials to the District Hospital, Malda and shall be obliged to finalise the same within a period of 6 weeks from the dale hereof.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iii) The Inspector General of Police, West Bengal, himself or through any other competent officer, not below the rank of Deputy Inspector General of Police, to be nominated by him shall forthwith take steps to investigate as to why without any reason the higher rate offered by the private respondents Nos. 7, 8 and 9 was accepted in relation to the subject tender and if on such investigation it transpires that any public officer for his own personal benefit had shun his public duty, shall immediately lodged a complaint under the Criminal Procedure Code', '1973 and forwardhis report to the appropriate Vigilance Department for taking appropriate steps against the erring officer. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. This disposes of the appeal as well as the writ petition. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1998Cal317',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of West Bengal and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Contract',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '875432'
)
$pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'
include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Warning (2): Invalid argument supplied for foreach() [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39]
Code Context
//$shops = $shops['entities'];

foreach ($shops2 as $key => $val) {
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Adhir Ghosh Vs. State of West Bengal and ors. Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'LAW' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'the Criminal Procedure Code''
		),
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Barin Ghosh',
			(int) 1 => 'Nos',
			(int) 2 => 'Nos',
			(int) 3 => 'Nos',
			(int) 4 => 'Nos',
			(int) 5 => 'Nos'
		),
		'NORP' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'J.1'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Malda',
			(int) 1 => 'the District Hospital',
			(int) 2 => 'Malda',
			(int) 3 => 'the District Diet Committee',
			(int) 4 => 'the District Diet Committee',
			(int) 5 => 'the District Hospital',
			(int) 6 => 'Malda',
			(int) 7 => 'Malda',
			(int) 8 => 'District Hospital',
			(int) 9 => 'Malda',
			(int) 10 => 'the District Hospital',
			(int) 11 => 'Malda',
			(int) 12 => 'State',
			(int) 13 => 'Court',
			(int) 14 => 'the State Government',
			(int) 15 => 'theState Government's',
			(int) 16 => 'theState Government',
			(int) 17 => 'State',
			(int) 18 => 'State',
			(int) 19 => 'State',
			(int) 20 => 'Court',
			(int) 21 => 'Court',
			(int) 22 => 'Senior Standing Counsel',
			(int) 23 => 'Senior Standing Counsel',
			(int) 24 => 'State',
			(int) 25 => 'The District Magistrate',
			(int) 26 => 'District Diet Committee',
			(int) 27 => 'the District Hospital',
			(int) 28 => 'Malda',
			(int) 29 => 'the District Hospital',
			(int) 30 => 'Malda',
			(int) 31 => 'Vigilance Department'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => '2424',
			(int) 1 => '23rd September, 1987',
			(int) 2 => '28-10-97',
			(int) 3 => '8',
			(int) 4 => '1997',
			(int) 5 => '8',
			(int) 6 => '8',
			(int) 7 => '8',
			(int) 8 => '8',
			(int) 9 => '8',
			(int) 10 => '6 weeks',
			(int) 11 => '8',
			(int) 12 => ''1973'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => '31',
			(int) 1 => '29',
			(int) 2 => '9',
			(int) 3 => 'six',
			(int) 4 => '23629(W',
			(int) 5 => '9',
			(int) 6 => '4-3-1998',
			(int) 7 => 'one',
			(int) 8 => 'two',
			(int) 9 => '9',
			(int) 10 => '9',
			(int) 11 => '9',
			(int) 12 => '9',
			(int) 13 => '9',
			(int) 14 => '14'
		),
		'GPE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'the District of Malda',
			(int) 1 => 'Haldia',
			(int) 2 => 'West Bengal'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '875432',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 14',
			'appealno' => 'M.A.T. No. 912 of 1998',
			'appellant' => 'Adhir Ghosh',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Adhir Ghosh Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Asoke Banerjee and ;Sarajit Sen, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'Samar Dutta, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Kolkata',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1998-05-15',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Prabha Shankar Mishra, C.J. and ;Barin Ghosh, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Barin Ghosh, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The Chief Medical Officer of Health, Malda, published a tender notice bearing No. 2424 dated 23rd September, 1987, inviting tender for supply of dietary articles to the District Hospital, Malda and to other hospitals in the same District for the period 1-11-97 or any subsequent date till 31-10-98.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The said tender contained a clause to the effect that the District Diet Committee reserves the right to reject tender without assigning any reason and the decision of the District Diet Committee will be final.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner/appellant participated in the said tender in respect of supply of all dietary articles except milk to the District Hospital, Malda 'only.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. On 28-10-97 the tenders were openedwhen rates quoted by different tenderers were not declared. However, on 29-10-97 Chief Medical Officer of Health, Malda, hung up a list of selected tenderers for supply of dietary articles indifferent hospitals in the District of Malda including District Hospital, Malda, furnishing therein the accepted rates.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. That list disclosed that the tender of the petitioner/appellant has been rejected and the tender of the private respondents No. 7, 8 and 9 have been accepted at a higher rate than those given by the petitioner/appellant for supplies tobe effected to the District Hospital, Malda. Itfurther revealed that the tenders given by others at the same rate that of the petitioner/appellant had been accepted for the supplies to be effected to six other hospitals. It further disclosed that even lower rates have been accepted for supplies to be effected to many other hospitals in theDistrict.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Hence by filing Writ Petition No. 23629(W) of 1997 the petitioner/appellant contended that rejection of lower rate offered by 'him and acceptance, of higher rate offered by the private respondents No. 7, 8 and 9 is arbitrary, opposed to public policy and contrary to the financial interest of the State and thus, illegal. A learned single Judge of this Court by order dated 4-3-1998, impugned herein, rejected the writ petition Holding as follows :--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'I find there js nothing illegality and/or arbitrariness on the part of the State Government in rejecting the offer of the writ petitioner, being guided by the terms and conditions mentioned in the fender-forms. The learned senior standingcounsel is right in saying that the writ petitioner cannot be allowed to question after havingaccepted the terms and conditions mentioned inthe tender notice after having been unsuccessful.I find there is no challenge whatsoever as againstthose terms and conditions, which enjoined theState Government's right to reject any offerwithout, assigning any, reason and further rightnot to accept any offer quoting below thescheduled rate. So I hold that this action of theState Government rejecting the offer of the writpetitioner is perfectly justified and lawful.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. A State or an instrumentality of State whenmaking purchases purchases, not for profit motive, is obligedto purchase at the most beneficial terms sincesuch purchases are made out of the public fundand for the benefit of the public. The most beneficial terms will also include most beneficial rate, but that is not, in all cases, the one and the only consideration. If a public authority is of the opinion that a supplier, who has quoted a lower rate, cannot supply standard materials, may reject the tender submitted by such supplier and more so when such supplies arc dietary products for patients of public hospitals. There may be various other technical reasons for not accepting an offer of a lower rate.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. When a public tender is floated, it is expected that a large number of members of the public will participate in such tender. While one or two tenders of such large number of participants will be accepted, the rest will be rejected. The rejection will be higher than acceptances. The authority concerned would be required to apply its mind for the purpose of acceptance as well as rejection. The number of rejection being large in number and may be based on different considerations, if till the rejects are required to be given reasons for each individual rejection, then that would unnecessarily delve into the public time of the public officers. Therefore, a clause contained in a tender that tenders may be rejected without assigning any reason is neither illegal, nor opposed to public policy, since there is a presumption that an act done by a, public officer is fair, reasonable and above-board.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. But when such fairness is challenged by way of judicial review and it is shown prima facie that there is reasonable doubt in regard to such fairness, as has been shown in the instant case that the State has preferred to spend more public fund, then it becomes the duty of the public authority to place before the Court the reasons for such preference.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. No such reason has been placed before the trial Court by the respondent-authorities. We, therefore, gave a further opportunity to furnish such reasons. The learned Senior Standing Counsel confessed before us that no reason has been recorded for rejecting the offer of the petitioner/appellant though the same was lower than the offers of the private respondents Nos. 7, 8 and 9, which have been accepted. We then asked the learned Senior Standing Counsel whether, despite not having recorded any reason, his clients can furnish any reason for rejecting the lower rate offered by the petitioner/appellant, towhich, the answer was in the negative.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Therefore, there cannot any doubt that the respondents in the matter of preferring the private respondents Nos. 7, 8 and 9 not only shun their public duty of spending less public fund for obtaining same benefit, hut also acted unreasonably and arbitrarily.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. If that is the finding, then selection of theprivate respondents Nos. 7, 8 and 9 and acceptance of their tender is per se illegal. But the larger question is why that was done? No justification, therefore, is forthcoming. Can we leave the matter there? We do not think so. If we do that and simply declare that the selection and acceptance so made were illegal, then that would permit the person responsible, who has shattered the public presumption of impartiality, reasonableness and fair play of a public officer discharging public duty, to go scot-free and in that we shall also be neglecting our public duly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the order impugned herein and disposed of the writ petition with the following directions :--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) It is declared that the acceptance of the tenders of the private respondents Nos. 7, 8 and 9 by the State-respondents is illegal and accordingly payments to be made to them for the supplies, if any, effected by them should be on quantum meruit. The District Magistrate, Haldia, being an the ex-officio Chairman of the said District Diet Committee shall be entitled to obtain supply of dietary materials for the District Hospital, Malda until a tender is finalised in terms of this order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) The respondents shall forthwith take steps to invite fresh tender for supply of dietory materials to the District Hospital, Malda and shall be obliged to finalise the same within a period of 6 weeks from the dale hereof.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iii) The Inspector General of Police, West Bengal, himself or through any other competent officer, not below the rank of Deputy Inspector General of Police, to be nominated by him shall forthwith take steps to investigate as to why without any reason the higher rate offered by the private respondents Nos. 7, 8 and 9 was accepted in relation to the subject tender and if on such investigation it transpires that any public officer for his own personal benefit had shun his public duty, shall immediately lodged a complaint under the Criminal Procedure Code', '1973 and forwardhis report to the appropriate Vigilance Department for taking appropriate steps against the erring officer. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. This disposes of the appeal as well as the writ petition. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1998Cal317',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of West Bengal and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Contract',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '875432'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Adhir Ghosh Vs. State of West Bengal and ors. Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'LAW' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'the Criminal Procedure Code''
	),
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Barin Ghosh',
		(int) 1 => 'Nos',
		(int) 2 => 'Nos',
		(int) 3 => 'Nos',
		(int) 4 => 'Nos',
		(int) 5 => 'Nos'
	),
	'NORP' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'J.1'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Malda',
		(int) 1 => 'the District Hospital',
		(int) 2 => 'Malda',
		(int) 3 => 'the District Diet Committee',
		(int) 4 => 'the District Diet Committee',
		(int) 5 => 'the District Hospital',
		(int) 6 => 'Malda',
		(int) 7 => 'Malda',
		(int) 8 => 'District Hospital',
		(int) 9 => 'Malda',
		(int) 10 => 'the District Hospital',
		(int) 11 => 'Malda',
		(int) 12 => 'State',
		(int) 13 => 'Court',
		(int) 14 => 'the State Government',
		(int) 15 => 'theState Government's',
		(int) 16 => 'theState Government',
		(int) 17 => 'State',
		(int) 18 => 'State',
		(int) 19 => 'State',
		(int) 20 => 'Court',
		(int) 21 => 'Court',
		(int) 22 => 'Senior Standing Counsel',
		(int) 23 => 'Senior Standing Counsel',
		(int) 24 => 'State',
		(int) 25 => 'The District Magistrate',
		(int) 26 => 'District Diet Committee',
		(int) 27 => 'the District Hospital',
		(int) 28 => 'Malda',
		(int) 29 => 'the District Hospital',
		(int) 30 => 'Malda',
		(int) 31 => 'Vigilance Department'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => '2424',
		(int) 1 => '23rd September, 1987',
		(int) 2 => '28-10-97',
		(int) 3 => '8',
		(int) 4 => '1997',
		(int) 5 => '8',
		(int) 6 => '8',
		(int) 7 => '8',
		(int) 8 => '8',
		(int) 9 => '8',
		(int) 10 => '6 weeks',
		(int) 11 => '8',
		(int) 12 => ''1973'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => '31',
		(int) 1 => '29',
		(int) 2 => '9',
		(int) 3 => 'six',
		(int) 4 => '23629(W',
		(int) 5 => '9',
		(int) 6 => '4-3-1998',
		(int) 7 => 'one',
		(int) 8 => 'two',
		(int) 9 => '9',
		(int) 10 => '9',
		(int) 11 => '9',
		(int) 12 => '9',
		(int) 13 => '9',
		(int) 14 => '14'
	),
	'GPE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'the District of Malda',
		(int) 1 => 'Haldia',
		(int) 2 => 'West Bengal'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '875432',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 14',
		'appealno' => 'M.A.T. No. 912 of 1998',
		'appellant' => 'Adhir Ghosh',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Adhir Ghosh Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Asoke Banerjee and ;Sarajit Sen, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'Samar Dutta, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Kolkata',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1998-05-15',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Prabha Shankar Mishra, C.J. and ;Barin Ghosh, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Barin Ghosh, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The Chief Medical Officer of Health, Malda, published a tender notice bearing No. 2424 dated 23rd September, 1987, inviting tender for supply of dietary articles to the District Hospital, Malda and to other hospitals in the same District for the period 1-11-97 or any subsequent date till 31-10-98.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The said tender contained a clause to the effect that the District Diet Committee reserves the right to reject tender without assigning any reason and the decision of the District Diet Committee will be final.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner/appellant participated in the said tender in respect of supply of all dietary articles except milk to the District Hospital, Malda 'only.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. On 28-10-97 the tenders were openedwhen rates quoted by different tenderers were not declared. However, on 29-10-97 Chief Medical Officer of Health, Malda, hung up a list of selected tenderers for supply of dietary articles indifferent hospitals in the District of Malda including District Hospital, Malda, furnishing therein the accepted rates.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. That list disclosed that the tender of the petitioner/appellant has been rejected and the tender of the private respondents No. 7, 8 and 9 have been accepted at a higher rate than those given by the petitioner/appellant for supplies tobe effected to the District Hospital, Malda. Itfurther revealed that the tenders given by others at the same rate that of the petitioner/appellant had been accepted for the supplies to be effected to six other hospitals. It further disclosed that even lower rates have been accepted for supplies to be effected to many other hospitals in theDistrict.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Hence by filing Writ Petition No. 23629(W) of 1997 the petitioner/appellant contended that rejection of lower rate offered by 'him and acceptance, of higher rate offered by the private respondents No. 7, 8 and 9 is arbitrary, opposed to public policy and contrary to the financial interest of the State and thus, illegal. A learned single Judge of this Court by order dated 4-3-1998, impugned herein, rejected the writ petition Holding as follows :--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'I find there js nothing illegality and/or arbitrariness on the part of the State Government in rejecting the offer of the writ petitioner, being guided by the terms and conditions mentioned in the fender-forms. The learned senior standingcounsel is right in saying that the writ petitioner cannot be allowed to question after havingaccepted the terms and conditions mentioned inthe tender notice after having been unsuccessful.I find there is no challenge whatsoever as againstthose terms and conditions, which enjoined theState Government's right to reject any offerwithout, assigning any, reason and further rightnot to accept any offer quoting below thescheduled rate. So I hold that this action of theState Government rejecting the offer of the writpetitioner is perfectly justified and lawful.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. A State or an instrumentality of State whenmaking purchases purchases, not for profit motive, is obligedto purchase at the most beneficial terms sincesuch purchases are made out of the public fundand for the benefit of the public. The most beneficial terms will also include most beneficial rate, but that is not, in all cases, the one and the only consideration. If a public authority is of the opinion that a supplier, who has quoted a lower rate, cannot supply standard materials, may reject the tender submitted by such supplier and more so when such supplies arc dietary products for patients of public hospitals. There may be various other technical reasons for not accepting an offer of a lower rate.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. When a public tender is floated, it is expected that a large number of members of the public will participate in such tender. While one or two tenders of such large number of participants will be accepted, the rest will be rejected. The rejection will be higher than acceptances. The authority concerned would be required to apply its mind for the purpose of acceptance as well as rejection. The number of rejection being large in number and may be based on different considerations, if till the rejects are required to be given reasons for each individual rejection, then that would unnecessarily delve into the public time of the public officers. Therefore, a clause contained in a tender that tenders may be rejected without assigning any reason is neither illegal, nor opposed to public policy, since there is a presumption that an act done by a, public officer is fair, reasonable and above-board.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. But when such fairness is challenged by way of judicial review and it is shown prima facie that there is reasonable doubt in regard to such fairness, as has been shown in the instant case that the State has preferred to spend more public fund, then it becomes the duty of the public authority to place before the Court the reasons for such preference.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. No such reason has been placed before the trial Court by the respondent-authorities. We, therefore, gave a further opportunity to furnish such reasons. The learned Senior Standing Counsel confessed before us that no reason has been recorded for rejecting the offer of the petitioner/appellant though the same was lower than the offers of the private respondents Nos. 7, 8 and 9, which have been accepted. We then asked the learned Senior Standing Counsel whether, despite not having recorded any reason, his clients can furnish any reason for rejecting the lower rate offered by the petitioner/appellant, towhich, the answer was in the negative.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Therefore, there cannot any doubt that the respondents in the matter of preferring the private respondents Nos. 7, 8 and 9 not only shun their public duty of spending less public fund for obtaining same benefit, hut also acted unreasonably and arbitrarily.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. If that is the finding, then selection of theprivate respondents Nos. 7, 8 and 9 and acceptance of their tender is per se illegal. But the larger question is why that was done? No justification, therefore, is forthcoming. Can we leave the matter there? We do not think so. If we do that and simply declare that the selection and acceptance so made were illegal, then that would permit the person responsible, who has shattered the public presumption of impartiality, reasonableness and fair play of a public officer discharging public duty, to go scot-free and in that we shall also be neglecting our public duly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the order impugned herein and disposed of the writ petition with the following directions :--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) It is declared that the acceptance of the tenders of the private respondents Nos. 7, 8 and 9 by the State-respondents is illegal and accordingly payments to be made to them for the supplies, if any, effected by them should be on quantum meruit. The District Magistrate, Haldia, being an the ex-officio Chairman of the said District Diet Committee shall be entitled to obtain supply of dietary materials for the District Hospital, Malda until a tender is finalised in terms of this order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) The respondents shall forthwith take steps to invite fresh tender for supply of dietory materials to the District Hospital, Malda and shall be obliged to finalise the same within a period of 6 weeks from the dale hereof.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iii) The Inspector General of Police, West Bengal, himself or through any other competent officer, not below the rank of Deputy Inspector General of Police, to be nominated by him shall forthwith take steps to investigate as to why without any reason the higher rate offered by the private respondents Nos. 7, 8 and 9 was accepted in relation to the subject tender and if on such investigation it transpires that any public officer for his own personal benefit had shun his public duty, shall immediately lodged a complaint under the Criminal Procedure Code', '1973 and forwardhis report to the appropriate Vigilance Department for taking appropriate steps against the erring officer. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. This disposes of the appeal as well as the writ petition. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1998Cal317',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of West Bengal and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Contract',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '875432'
)
$pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'
$shops2 = null
include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

LAW: the Criminal Procedure Code'

PERSON: Barin Ghosh, Nos, Nos, Nos, Nos, Nos

NORP: J.1

ORG: Malda, the District Hospital, Malda, the District Diet Committee, the District Diet Committee, the District Hospital, Malda, Malda, District Hospital, Malda, the District Hospital, Malda, State, Court, the State Government, theState Government's, theState Government, State, State, State, Court, Court, Senior Standing Counsel, Senior Standing Counsel, State, The District Magistrate, District Diet Committee, the District Hospital, Malda, the District Hospital, Malda, Vigilance Department

DATE: 2424, 23rd September, 1987, 28-10-97, 8, 1997, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 6 weeks, 8, '1973

CARDINAL: 31, 29, 9, six, 23629(W, 9, 4-3-1998, one, two, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 14

GPE: the District of Malda, Haldia, West Bengal