ORDER
S.K. Katriar, J.
1. Heard Mr. Vinod Kanth for the petitioner, and Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned SC No. III for the respondents. This writ petition has been preferred with the prayer to set aside the order dated 11.6.2001 (Annexure-3), whereby respondent No. 2 (P.N. Narayanan, Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Public Health and Engineering Department, Government of Bihar, Patna), has directed that the petitioner’s tender to lift scrap materials from the godowns of the different divisions of the Public Health and Engineering Department of the State Government is confined to the divisions of Sasaram, Bhabhua, Sitamarhi and Patna (Mechanical). It is further stated therein that validity of the tender has expired and the balance of the materials shall be advertised for auction separately, if necessary.
2. The State Government had issued a tender notice dated 26.2.1994 another tender notice of the same date (Annexure-1 and 2 respectively to the petitioner’s previous writ petition bearing CWJC No. 3622 of 1988), notifying that scrap materials in the godowns of the different divisions of the Department are on sale. Annexure-1 notified that the scrap of corrugated iron and galvanised iron shall be sold on the basis of offers received from different persons. Annexure-2 is on just the same lines except that it in addition mentioned sale of brass scrap also. A copy of the notice to the Tenderers was handed over by the Department to each applicant (along with tender application), and is marked Annexure-6 to the petitioner’s supplementary affidavit. Annexure-A thereto is dated 11.3.1994, under the signature of respondent No. 4 (the Engineering-in-Chief-cum-Special Secretary), stating that a total quantity of 1350 MTs. were available for sale in the godowns of the different divisions of the department all over the State of Bihar. The rates quoted by the petitioner were the highest, and his offer was accepted. Respondent No. 4 issued his letter bearing No. 149, dated 21.9.1985 (Annexure-3), to all the Executive Engineers of the Department, informing them of acceptance of the rates at which the petitioner’s offer had been accepted. They were therefore, directed to submit the requisite survey report regarding the scrap materials mentioned therein so that the State Government may take the follow-up action, and the Government revenue does not suffer. The petitioner lifted the scrap materials from the godowns at Sasaram, Bhabhua, Sitamarhi and Patna (Mechanical), issued under the signature of the respective Executive Engineers, vide letters marked Annexure-4, 5 and 8.
3. This was followed by letter of the headquarters dated 1.6.1996 (Annexure-8 to CWJC No. 3627/98(, wherein it was stated that genuine materials in the godowns were being sold in the name of scrap. The petitioner was not allowed to lift further materials and a committee was constituted for sale of scrap materials of the remaining places. The petitioner had, therefore, preferred CWJC No. 3622/98 for a direction to quash the aforesaid letter which came in the way of the petitioner and for direction to the respondent authorities to permit the petitioner to lift the materials from all the godowns. The writ petition was allowed with costs quantified at Rs. 10,000/- and the respondent authorities were directed to permit the petitioner to lift the materials from all the godowns in Bihar including Patna as expeditiously as the petitioner can. The State of Bihar filed LPA No. 527 of 2000 which was dismissed by order dated 21.11.2000 (Annexure-2), and no relief was granted to the State of Bihar on merits except that the costs of Rs. 10,000/- was deleted. The order became final. This was followed by the impugned order whereby respondent No. 2 has directed that the relief claimed for by the petitioner was only applicable to the aforesaid four places and, therefore, the. orders of this Court have been complied with. Hence this writ petition.
4. While assailing the validity of the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No. 2 is trying to sit in judgment over the orders of this Court. The question whether or not the petitioner’s tender for sale of scrap materials was confined to four places in the State of Bihar. is concluded by the order of this Court passed in the writ petition and confirmed in appeal. He next submits that the combined effect of the two orders of this Court lead only conclusion, namely, the scrap materials of all the godowns were intended to be sold to the petitioner.
5. Learned Standing Counsel has supported the impugned order.
6. I have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears to me on a plain reading of the two tender notices that the scrap materials of the three categories of metals stated therein of all the godowns of the different divisions throughout the State of Bihar was intended to be sold and there is no indication therein that it was confined to the godowns of the four divisions. Annexure-A to ‘The Notes to Tenderer’s supplied by the department along with the tender papers, is reproduced hereinbelow :–
Bill of Quantify for sale of scraps from different P.H.
Divisional/Sub-Divisional/Sectional Store in Bihar.
Estimated Cost : 50 lacs Date of bid/18.3.1994
Sl. No.
Particular and Specification
Quantity Unit Rate Total amount
1.
Inspecting and purchasing of scraps as mentioned below from P/H. Divisional/Sub-Divisional/Sectional Stores, situated in all over Bihar State, including its stocking for existment, weighing, removing the same Jrom store etc. all complete job (loading and carriage of scraps to purchaser’s cost) Sales Tax as per Bihar Government Rules is to be paid extra.
Per metric tonns
(a)
Cast Iron Scrap
900 m/t
(b)
Galvanised Mild Steel Tube Scrap
200 m/t
(c)
Mild Steel Scrap
100 m/t
(d)
Brass Scrap
100m/t
(e)
6 mm. metal scrap
50 m/t
1350 m/t
Sd/-
(Hemant Lal)
Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Spl. Scry.
P.H.E.D. Department, Bihar, Patna.
The Bill of Quantity thus stated “…scraps….. in stores situate in all over the State of Bihar…. and was quantified at 1350 mts. It is thus manifest from a combined reading of the tender notices and the tender papers that the scrap materials from the stores of the different divisions/sections situate all over the State of Bihar were intended to be sold and a total quantity of 1350 MTs/ was estimated to be available for sale. The total quantity of scrap available for sale is also an important circumstance to reinforce the said conclusion.
7. The petitioner had submitted his tender paper for the entire quantity of 1350 MTs. It is manifest from the letter dated 21.8.1995 (Annexure-3 to the previous writ petition) that the petitioner was given the scrap materials of all the centres and the letter was addressed to he Executive Engineers of all the centres throughout the State. The petitioner could lift only 150 MTs. because of the ban imposed by the aforesaid letter dated 1.6.1998. The writ petition was allowed in the following terms :– .
“In the result, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 11.12.1995 (Annexure-7), and dated 1:6.1996 (Annexure-8), are hereby quashed. The respondent authorities are directed to permit the petitioner to lift the materials from all the centres including Patna as expeditiously as the petitioner can. This writ petition is allowed with costs quantified at Rs. 10,000/-(ten thousand) for the arbitrariness attributable to the respondent authorities and the delay caused in the meanwhile, which shall be adjusted against the amount payable by the petitioner.”
No material has been brought to my notice that the State of Bihar had taken stand as a respondent in the writ petition, or as the appellant in the appeal, that the scrap materials of only four godowns were intended to be sold, the writ petitioner had prayed for that much of relief only, and the single Judge had granted in excess of the relief prayed for. In other words, the order of this Court upholding the petitioner’s contention that he was entitled to lift the scrap materials from all the godowns was upheld by the single Judge as well as the Division Bench. Respondent No. 2 has purposely misquoted and misinterpreted in the impugned order, the relief prayed for in the previous writ petition which does not in the least indicate that the petitioner had confined his relief to the four divisions. Therefore, the impugned order is bad in law.
8. Law is well settled that if the relief being sought emanate from the facts stated in the writ petition, then appropriate relief cannot be withheld on account of the failure on the part of petitioner to make a formal prayer in that behalf. This issue had fallen for the consideration of this Court in the case of M/s Elite Engineering Company v. B.S.E.B., and the judgment is reported in 2000 (2) BLJR 1015, paragraph-16 of which is relevant to the present context and is set out hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference :–
“16. Counsel for the Board has also contended that in view of the limited prayer made in the writ petition, seeking quashing of the impugned order alone, it is not open to the petitioner to seek direction to the Board to release payment of the 15 sets already received, and for the further direction commanding the Board to accept supply of the balance 15 sets. I am unable to accede to the contention for the reason that law is well settled that the language in which the formal portion of the prayer portion of the writ petition is couched does not determine the nature of reliefs to be granted by the Court. If the reliefs being sought emanate from the facts stated in the writ petition, nay the pleadings of the parties, then appropriate relief cannot be withheld on account of the failure on the part of the petitioner to make a formal prayer in that behalf. That would be piling unreason upon technicality. Reference may be made to the judgments reported in AIR 1943 Patna 305, Babu Lal Ray v. Bindhyachal Ray, AIR 1952 SC 47, Kedar Lal Seal v. Hari Lal Seal, and AIR 1958 SC 593, Nagubhai Ammal v. B. Shama Rao. This Court is in doubt that the said reliefs sought for in the present case do emanate from the pleadings of the parties. The facts averred in the writ petition, the documents annexed thereto, the counter- affidavits, the rejoinder, and the further affidavits make it abundantly clear that the parties have been alive to these issues, and have been effectively thrashed during the course of oral arguments. The Board’s contention is, therefore, rejected.”
8.1. In fact, the aforesaid proposition of law is not relevant in the present context for the reason that the petitioner had not in the earlier writ petition confined his prayer in the formal relief portion to the four divisions only. The correct position is that the petitioner had prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities to lift the scrap materials from all the godowns and was clearly discernible from the pleadings of the parties and the reliefs prayed for.
9. Respondent No. 2 concludes in the impugned order that “any relief arising out of a litigation can never be interpreted so as to provide benefit beyond the relief sought in the petition itself.” Apart from the fact that the materials on record and the orders of this Court indicate in unequivocal terms that the scrap materials of all the centres were intended to be sold, the conclusion derived by respondent No. 2 does not flow from the relief portion of the previous writ petition. I have not the slightest manner of doubt that respondent No. 2 has acted in a mala fide manner and has tried to over-reach this Court. He should not have attempted to sit in judgment over the orders of this Court. This has harassed the petitioner no end and has burdened this Court with a most unwanted litigation. He should act in a more responsible manner in discharge of his official duties. Is he under the impression that it is only the Court which has to deliver justice to the citizen, and it is no part of the duty of the State Government and its functionaries to act in consonance with justice, fair-play, and good conscience? This Court records its strong feeling of displeasure as the mala fide manner in which respondent No. 2 has acted in this matter.
10. Respondent No. 2 has placed on record his supplementary affidavit personally sworn by him wherein it is stated that in case it is found by this Court that the orders of this Court have not been properly implemented, then the same shall be implemented in accordance with the directions in the present writ petition. It is tantamount to purposely offending anybody and then expressing regret to be pardoned and is once again a mala fide attempt on the part of a respondent No. 2 to deflect the course of justice. The question could have really arisen had there been any doubt or difficulty about the orders passed by this Court, I have not the slightest manner of doubt that the two orders of this Court lead to one and only one conclusion stated hereinabove. The problem has arisen because of the mala fide approach on the part of respondent No. 2 ex facie acting with ulterior motives.
11. Leaned counsel for the petitioner has rightly relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Anil Ratan Sarkar v. Hirak Ghosh, (2002) 4 SCC 21, paragraph 21 of which is relevant and is set out hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference :–
“21. This matter is pending in the Courts since more than last 15 years, but unfortunately the litigious spirit of the respondent State has not minimised even to the slightest extent the spirit continues and so is the deprivation. The defence of understanding is not only moonshine but a deliberate attempt to overreach this Court’s order and as such wilfulness in the matter of disregard of this Court’s order is apparent on the face of it and we are not prepared to accept the same as a defence of an auction for deliberate and wilful disregard of an order of the Court. We find that the actions on the part of the respondent authorities are not only unreasonable but deliberate and spiteful and that too inspite of a specific direction in all the five judgments so far obtained by the petitioners in their favour, Avoidance is written large and it would be difficult for us to consume the same without any particular rhyme or reason.”
The observations of the Supreme Court apply on all fours to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The respondent authorities should be ashamed of their conduct.
14. I detain myself suo motu to consider the statement made in the aforesaid letter dated 1.6.1996 (Annexure-8 to the previous writ petition being CWJC No. 3822 1998), although no contention has been advanced on behalf of the respondents that the State Government had noticed that certain useful materials were being sold on the false ground of being scrap material and, therefore, sale of scrap materials in the remaining godowns have been stopped. This resolution does not even whisper that the petitioner is in collusion with the officers of the State Government in sale of the genuine materials in the name of scrap. It is a possible situation that taking advantage of the order in favour of the petitioner, the functionaries of the State Government may be selling genuine materials without the petitioner’s participation, overt or covert. Secondly, there is no material before this Court to show that action has been taken against the Government employees allegedly responsible for the same. The criminal investigation, in any, was discussed in the rejected. Furthermore eight years have lapsed and the State Government has not informed this Court of the progress made in the vigilance case, and the petitioner’s complicity, if any.
13. In the result, this writ petition is allowed, with costs quantified at Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand). The impugned order dated 11.6.2001 (Annexure-3) is hereby set aside. The respondent authorities are hereby directed to ensure that the petitioner is able to lift the scrap materials from the remaining godowns of all its divisions of the Public Health and Engineering Department of the State of Bihar to the extent of the balance of 1150 MTs. Petition allowed.