Patna High Court
Rajesh PrasadversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- A ABHISHEK REDDY
Holding
The Central Purchase Committee lacks jurisdiction to modify rates fixed by the District Jail Purchase Committee, and the petitioner is entitled to payment at the district‑approved rates.
Summary
The petitioner, a supplier of food grains and other articles to District Jail, Bihar Sharif, challenged two orders fixing rates for his supplies that were lower than the rates recommended by the District Jail Purchase Committee and approved by the District Magistrate. He claimed the Central Purchase Committee had no authority to reduce those rates and sought payment of the differential amount with interest. The court examined prior judgments (C.W.J.C. Nos. 66/2013, 19583/2015, etc.) and held that the Central Purchase Committee cannot overrule rates set by the District Committee under Rule 24 and Rule 1051 of the Bihar Jail Manual. The court found the petitioner was entitled to the higher, district‑approved rates and that the respondents were estopped from unilaterally altering the contract. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside and the jail superintendent was directed to pay the balance differential amount within eight weeks.
Issues considered
- Whether the Central Purchase Committee has jurisdiction to alter rates fixed by the District Jail Purchase Committee under the Bihar Jail Manual.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to differential payment for supplies made at rates approved by the District Jail Purchase Committee.
- Whether the orders fixing lower rates violate Rule 24 and Rule 1051 of the Bihar Jail Manual.
- Whether the doctrine of legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel bars the respondents from reducing the agreed rates.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Jail Manual — s. Rule 1051, Rule 24
Subjects
- jail procurement
- rate fixation
- Central Purchase Committee
- District Jail Purchase Committee
- legitimate expectation
- promissory estoppel
- mandamus
- Bihar Jail Manual
- Rule 24
- Rule 1051
- writ petition
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12087 of 2025
======================================================
Rajesh Prasad Son of Ramdev Prasad, Resident of village Dipnagar, PS
Dipnagar, District Nalanda.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through The Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
2. The Home Commissioner, Home (Jail) Department, Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director (Work Shop), Jail Inspectorate, Home (Jail) Bihar, Patna.
4. The Inspector General, Prison, Bihar, Patna.
5. The District Magistrate-cum-Chairman, District Jail Purchase Committee,
Nalanda.
6. The Jail Superintendent, District Jail, Bihar Sarif, Nalanda.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Satish Kumar Sinha, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Dr. Md. Raisul Haque, Standing Counsel (10)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
ORAL ORDER
4 20-01-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The present writ petition has been filed for the
following relief(s):-
“(i) The order dated 28.08.2012,
contained in Memo No. 3866, issued by the Director
(Workshop), Jail Inspectorate, Home (Jail)
Department, Bihar Government, Patna, by which
the standard rate of different articles for supply of
the same in different jail of Bihar, has been fixed,
stating therein that the payment for the supply of
food grains and other articles, made by the
suppliers in jails, in financial years 2012-13, till, up
till now, i.e. from 01.04.2012 to 23.08.2012, shall be
made to the suppliers at the rate, fixed and approved
for the financial year 2011-12 and the payment for
the supply of food grains and other articles, made
by the suppliers after the meeting of Central
Purchase Committee, i. e. after 23.08.2012, shall be
Patna High Court CWJC No.12087 of 2025(4) dt.20-01-2026
2/7
made to the suppliers at the rate, fixed and approved
for the financial year 2012-13, by the Central
Purchase Committee, which is very lower to the
market rate and rate fixed by the District Jail
Purchase Committee and approved by the District
Magistrate and the same is also contrary to the
provision of the Rule 24 as well as Rule 1051 of
Bihar Jail Manual.
(ii) The order dated 05.10.2012,
contained in Memo No. 4527. issued under the
signature of the Director (Workshop), Jail
Inspectorate, Home (Jail) Department, Bihar
Government, Patna, by which the order dated
28.08.2012, contained in Memo No. 3866, was
modified, fixing the another fresh rate, contrary to
the rate, fixed and recommended by the District Jail
Purchase Committee, Nalanda.
B) A writ in the nature of mandamus or
any other appropriate writ/s, order/s, directions
Commanding the respondent to make payment of the
balance differential amount to the petitioner, against
the supply made by him in District Jail, Bihar Sharif
of Nalanda district, during the financial year 2012-
13, as per the rate, fixed by the District Jail
Purchase Committee, Bihar Sarif, Nalanda, which
was approved by the District Magistrate, Nalanda,
with penal interest, after adjusting the amount
already paid to him, in the light of order/ judgement,
passed in C. W. J. C. No. 66/2013 (i.e. Annexure-P6
to the petition) and in CWJC No. 17308 of 2024
(i.e., Annexure-P9 to this petition).
(C) Any other relief/s for which the
petitioner is entitled for. ”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed that
the matter is presently squarely covered by the judgment of this
Hon’ble Court in C.W.J.C. No. 19583 of 2015 and other writ
petitions which were allowed by this Hon’ble Court. Learned
counsel has also stated that C.W.J.C. No. 66 of 2013 pertaining
to similar reliefs, as claimed in the present writ petition, was
Patna High Court CWJC No.12087 of 2025(4) dt.20-01-2026
3/7
allowed by this Hon’ble Court and the said order was confirmed
by a Division Bench in LPA No. 594 of 2016 vide order, dated
14.07.2017, and thereafter the said order of the Division Bench
was also challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide
Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 28334 of 2017 and the Hon’ble
Supreme Court was also pleased to dismiss the Special Leave to
Appeal vide order, dated 03.11.2017, therefore, learned counsel
has prayed this Hon’ble Court to allow the present writ petition.
4. Moreover, it is stated by the counsel for the
petitioner that the order passed by this Hon’ble Court in
C.W.J.C. No. 19583 of 2015, dated 05.05.2023, was also
complied by the authorities concerned as the full payment was
made to the writ petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents while fairly
conceding has not disputed the orders passed by this Hon’ble
Court in the above referred case but has tried to distinguish the
same.
6. A perusal of the order as well as prayer sought in
the present writ petition shows that this Hon’ble Court under
similar circumstances has allowed the writ petition filed by the
petitioner therein. Therefore, the attempt of the counsel for the
respondents to distinguish the same on facts is rejected as the
Patna High Court CWJC No.12087 of 2025(4) dt.20-01-2026
4/7
above judgment squarely covered to the present case.
7. Admittedly, in the present case also the petitioner
was selected for the purpose of supplying of food grains and
other general articles and the rate which was earlier fixed by the
District Jail Purchase Committee was approved by the District
Magistrate, Nalanda, but, after the articles were supplied and the
rate fixed by the District Jail Purchase Committee, the Central
Purchase Committee has unilaterally reduced the rate fixed. This
Court in a catena of cases under similar circumstances has
passed the following order :
“A bare perusal of the statutory
provisions underlying Rule 24 read
alongside Rule 1051 of the Jail Manual,
would manifest that no appellate jurisdiction
is vested in the Central Purchase Committee
to preside over the rate recommended by the
District Jail Purchase Committee. In fact the
area is clearly demarcated and whereas the
Central Purchase Committee is required to
give a wholesome consideration to the
requirements and the needs of the Jails
established across the State and thus
exercises jurisdiction where the purchases
are to be made in large quantities, on the
other hand, the District Jail Purchase
Committees are constituted in each district
and are presided by the District Magistrate.
These Committees are looking into the
individual needs and interests of the jail
situated within the district. The area of
operation of the two Committee is clearly
demarcated and in the circumstances it is
clearly established that the Central Purchase
Committee has exceeded its jurisdiction to
sit in appeal over the rates so recommended
Patna High Court CWJC No.12087 of 2025(4) dt.20-01-2026
5/7
by the respective District Jail Purchase
Committee in the present batch of cases.
Another infirmity which is
eloquent from a very look of the tender
notice is that it is first of its kind where the
tenderers are required to make supplies
without any agreement on the rates. In fact
the tender on record of these batch of writ
petitions reflect that the willing tenderers
were only applicants for the supplies and the
rates for such supplies was to be determined
by the District Jail Purchase Committee who
had to consider the fixation in the backdrop
of the rates prevalent in the markets. Rule
1051 of the Jail Manual manifests that such
Committee is to be presided by the District
Magistrate and Rule 1051 (v) further
provides that the current prices is to be
ascertained by the Committee by making
enquires.
In a similar manner Rule 24
requires a Central Purchase Committee to
take a decision in this regard and Sub Rule
(6) thereof vests jurisdiction in the Inspector
General to sanction a higher rate then
recommended by the Purchase Committee.
This singular provision by itself is supportive
of the fact that a rate recommended by the
District Jail Purchase Committee is not to be
interfered with in a light manner unless the
Inspector General of Prisons is of the
opinion to sanction a higher rate. In the
present case it is absolutely the converse and
the rates as recommended by the respective
District Jail Purchase Committee has been
interfered with by the Central Purchase
Committee to reduce the same. The period of
supply is over and the petitioners have made
their supplies under the legitimate
expectation of the rates recommended by the
District Jail Purchase Committee. In my
opinion once the District Jail Purchase
Committee has approved and recommended
the rates offered by the petitioners by
following the procedure provided under Rule
Patna High Court CWJC No.12087 of 2025(4) dt.20-01-2026
6/7
1051(v) and it is upon such approval that the
supplies were made by the petitioners then
the same cannot be reversed unilaterally,
midway in the contract and without the
consent of the contracting party i.e the
petitioners herein. The respondents are
estopped from interfering with the rates so
recommended by the District Jail Purchase
Committee in view of the statutory
prescriptions as well as on the principles of
legitimate expectation and promissory
estoppel. In so far as the District of Saharsa
and Nawada is concerned, the illegality is
further perpetuated when the respondents
have gone ahead to recover the differential
amount. Apart from the fact that the Central
Purchase Committee though presided by the
Inspector General of Prisons has no
jurisdiction to reverse the rate recommended
by the District Jail Purchase Committee even
otherwise, once the petitioners have made
their supplies at a rate recommended by the
District Jail Purchase Committee then the
rate can not be interfered in the midst of the
contract to the prejudice of a contracting
party.”
8. The above said judgment has been affirmed by the
Hon’ble Division Bench holding as under :
“In the matter of purchase made
to the jail in question, based on the
recommendations of the District Jail
Purchase Committee as approved by the
Inspector General of Prison, the subsequent
action taken by the Central Purchase
Committee has been examined by the
learned Writ Court in the backdrop of the
rules contained under the Jail Manual and it
has been found that once the petitioners had
supplied the materials based on the
recommendations and the price fixed by the
District Jail Purchase Committee approved
by the Inspector General of Prison, the
Central Purchase Committee has no
Patna High Court CWJC No.12087 of 2025(4) dt.20-01-2026
7/7
jurisdiction to sit over the matter and
reconsider the issue.
After going through the statutory
provisions in detail and discussing the issue
involved, we find that learned Writ Court has
decided the issue in accordance with law,
which does not warrant any consideration.”
9. Having regard to the above laid legal proposition,
the writ petition stands allowed. The impugned order is set
aside. The Jail Superintendent, District Jail, Biharsharif,
Nalanda respondent no. 6, is directed to make payment of the
balance differential amount for supply made in the financial
year 2012-13 to the petitioner as per the rate recommended by
the District Jail Purchase Committee, after adjusting the amount
already paid to the petitioner. The Inspector General, Jail, Bihar,
Patna, is directed to release the fund for the said purpose. The
above exercise shall be complied within eight weeks from the
date of receipt/communication of this order.
(A. Abhishek Reddy, J)
Ayush/-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.