Patna High Court
Md. Hadis NazversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
Holding
The Central Purchase Committee has no jurisdiction to alter rates fixed by the District Jail Purchase Committee, and the petitioner is entitled to payment of the differential amount.
Summary
The petitioner, Md. Hadis Naz, supplied various articles to Sub Jail, Bhagalpur during FY 2013-14 at rates fixed by the District Jail Purchase Committee and approved by the District Magistrate. Subsequently, the Central Purchase Committee unilaterally reduced those rates, causing a shortfall in payment to the petitioner. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking quashing of the Central Committee's order and mandating payment of the differential amount with interest. The respondents argued that the petition was barred by laches, having been filed eleven years after the supply. The Court held that under Rule 24 and Rule 1051 of the Bihar Jail Manual, the Central Purchase Committee lacks jurisdiction to alter rates fixed by the District Committee, and the petitioner is entitled to the differential amount. The petition was allowed, the impugned order set aside, and the Sub Jail Superintendent directed to pay the balance after adjusting amounts already paid.
Issues considered
- The Central Purchase Committee's jurisdiction to modify rates fixed by the District Jail Purchase Committee under the Bihar Jail Manual.
- Whether the writ petition is barred by laches due to the delay in filing.
- The entitlement of the petitioner to the differential amount and interest for supplies made at the District Committee's rates.
Subjects
- jail procurement
- rate fixation
- jurisdiction
- promissory estoppel
- laches
- civil writ jurisdiction
- Bihar Jail Manual
- Central Purchase Committee
- District Jail Purchase Committee
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6712 of 2026
======================================================
Md. Hadis Naz, Son of Md. Halim Uddin, Resident of Village Bansitikar, 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,
Bhagalpur.
6. The Jail Superintendent, Special Central Jail, Bhagalpur.
7. The Jail Superintendent, Sub Jail, Bhagalpur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Satish Kumar Sinha, Advocate.
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Government Advocate (11)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
ORAL ORDER
2 30-04-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the
following relief(s):-
“(A) A writ in the nature of certiorari or any other
appropriate writ/s, order/s for quashing the order
dated 10.10.2013, contained in Memo No. 5085
issued by the Additional Jail Inspector General, Jail
and Reform Service, Home (Jail) Department, Bihar
Government, Patna by which the standard rate of
different articles for supply of the same in different
jail of Bihar, during the financial year 2013-14 has
been fixed by Central Purchase Committee, which is
very lower to market rate, as well as, the rate, fixed
by the District Jail Purchase Committee and
Patna High Court CWJC No.6712 of 2026(2) dt.30-04-2026
2/8
approved by District Magistrate, Bhagalpur, as well
as, in Contrary to the provision of the Rule 24 as
well as Rule 1051 of Bihar Jail Manual.
(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
articles supplied by him, in Sub Jail, Naugachhiya
of Bhagalpur district, during the financial year
2013-14, as per the rate, fixed and recommended by
the District Jail Purchase Committee, Bhagalpur
which was approved by the District Magistrate,
Bhagalpur, with Penal interest, after adjusting the
amount already paid to her.
(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
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.
Patna High Court CWJC No.6712 of 2026(2) dt.30-04-2026
3/8
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
dismissed on the ground of latches. Learned counsel has stated
that though the petitioner has submitted the bills in the year
2013-14 the present writ petition has been filed after a gap of
almost eleven 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.6712 of 2026(2) dt.30-04-2026
4/8
were made for the supply of the financial year 2013-14 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., (i) Pulse (Masur), (ii) Pulse
(Gram), (iii) Pulse (Arhar), (iv) Gram, (v) Jaggery (Gur), (vi)
Tea leaf, (vii) Sugar, (viii) Mustard Oil – Dhara, (ix) Milk
Powder, (x) Rice, (xi) Wheat, (xii) Coal, (xiii) Fire wood and
(viv) Meat and the rate which was earlier fixed by the 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.6712 of 2026(2) dt.30-04-2026
5/8
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 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.6712 of 2026(2) dt.30-04-2026
6/8
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 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.6712 of 2026(2) dt.30-04-2026
7/8
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
Patna High Court CWJC No.6712 of 2026(2) dt.30-04-2026
8/8
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, Sub Jail, Bhagalpur (Respondent
No. 7) is directed to make payment of the balance differential
amount for supply made in the financial year 2013-14 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)
shakir/-
U
Checking your session…