Patna High Court
Md. Hadis NazversusThe State of Bihar, through the Chief Secretary,
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- A ABHISHEK REDDY
Holding
The Central Purchase Committee exceeded its jurisdiction to alter rates fixed by the District Jail Purchase Committee, rendering the impugned orders void and entitling the petitioner to the differential payment.
Summary
The petitioner, Md. Hadis Naz, supplied food grains and other articles to District Jail Khagaria for FY 2012‑13 based on rates fixed by the District Jail Purchase Committee and approved by the District Magistrate. Subsequently, the Central Purchase Committee issued memos on 28‑08‑2012 and 05‑10‑2012 reducing those rates, resulting in under‑payment to the petitioner. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking quashing of those orders and a mandamus directing payment of the differential amount with interest. The respondents contended that the petition was barred by limitation, having been filed thirteen years after the supplies were made. The Court examined Rule 24 and Rule 1051 of the Bihar Jail Manual, held that the Central Purchase Committee had no jurisdiction to alter rates recommended by the District Committee, and found that earlier decisions allowed similar delayed petitions; consequently, the impugned orders were set aside and the respondents were directed to pay the balance amount. The writ petition was allowed.
Issues considered
- The Central Purchase Committee’s jurisdiction to modify rates fixed by the District Jail Purchase Committee under Rules 24 and 1051 of the Bihar Jail Manual
- Whether the writ petition is barred by limitation/laches due to the thirteen‑year delay
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to the differential payment at the rates recommended by the District Jail Purchase Committee with interest
- Whether the orders dated 28‑08‑2012 and 05‑10‑2012 can be quashed
Subjects
- jail procurement
- rate fixation
- Central Purchase Committee
- District Jail Purchase Committee
- limitation
- laches
- promissory estoppel
- Bihar Jail Manual
- writ petition
- mandamus
- certiorari
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6064 of 2026
======================================================
Md. Hadis Naz S/o Md. Halim Uddin, Resident of Village - Bansitkar, P.S.
Sabour, District- Bhagalpur.
... ... 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,
Khagaria.
6. The Jail Superintendent, District Jail, Khagaria.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Satish Kumar Sinha
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Government Advocate (11)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
ORAL ORDER
2 27-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2 The present writ petition has been filed seeking the
following reliefs:
“(A) A writ in the nature of certiorari or
any other appropriate writ/s, order/s for quashing
the following:
(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 supplies
in jails in financial year 2012-13 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.6064 of 2026(2) dt.27-04-2026
2/8
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 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
Rule 24 as well as Rule 1051 of Bihar Jail Manual.
(Annexure-P2 to the petition)
(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, Khagaria.
(Annexure-P5 to the petition)
(B) A writ in the nature of mandamus or
any other appropriate writ/s, order/s, directions
commanding the respondents to make payment of
the balance differential amount to the
petitioner/supplier against the articles supplied by
him in District Jail, Khagaria during the financial
year 2012-213 as per the rate fixed and
recommended by the District Jail Purchase
Committee, Khagaria which was approved by the
District Magistrate, Khagaria with penal interest
after adjusting the amount already paid to him.
(C) Any other relief/s for which the
petitioner is entitled to.
3 Learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed that
the matter is squarely covered by the judgment of this Hon’ble
Patna High Court CWJC No.6064 of 2026(2) dt.27-04-2026
3/8
Court passed 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
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. 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 Further, 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 therein.
5 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents has vehemently opposed the very maintainability of
the present writ petition stating that the present writ petition has
been filed belatedly. Learned counsel has stated that the present
writ petition is not maintainable and the same is liable to be
Patna High Court CWJC No.6064 of 2026(2) dt.27-04-2026
4/8
dismissed on the ground of latches. Learned counsel has stated
that though the petitioner has submitted the bills in the year
2012-13 the present writ petition has been filed after a gap of
almost thirteen years, therefore, the present writ petition is liable
to be dismissed on this sole ground.
6 A perusal of the impugned order as well as the
pleadings in the present writ petition shows that this Hon’ble
Court under similar circumstances has allowed the writ petitions
filed by the petitioners therein. Even though, the learned counsel
for the respondents has prayed this Court to dismiss the present
writ petition on the ground of latches. However, it is pertinent to
note that this Court has allowed the several writ petitions which
were made for the supply of the financial year 2012-13 in the
year 2024. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the above
objections taken by the respondents does not find any merit any
consideration, the attempt of the counsel for the respondents to
distinguish the same on facts is rejected as the above judgments
squarely covers the present case.
7 Admittedly, in the present case also the petitioner
was selected for the purpose of supplying of different articles,
including the tendered article, i.e., rice, flour of wheat, he-goat
meat, fire wood etc. and the rate which was earlier fixed by the
Patna High Court CWJC No.6064 of 2026(2) dt.27-04-2026
5/8
District Jail Purchase Committee was approved by the District
Magistrate, but, after the articles were supplied at 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 Patna High Court CWJC
No.8365 of 2025(2) dt.23-06-2025 6/9 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 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.6064 of 2026(2) dt.27-04-2026
6/8
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 enquiries.
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 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.6064 of 2026(2) dt.27-04-2026
7/8
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 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, Khagaria
(Respondent No. 6) is directed to make payment of the balance
Patna High Court CWJC No.6064 of 2026(2) dt.27-04-2026
8/8
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)
M.E.H./-
U
Checking your session…