2021 INSC 0365
                                                        NON­REPORTABLE
   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
    CIVIL APPEAL NO.         OF 2021   
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.13683 of 2018)
Multitask Solutions                            .…Appellant(s)
Versus
Zilla Parishad Washim & Ors.                   ….  Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
A.S. Bopanna,J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The   appellant   herein   is   assailing   the   order   dated
24.02.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay,
Nagpur   Bench   in   Writ   Petition   No.4789   of   2014.   Through   the
said   order,   the   High   Court   has   directed   the   State   of
Maharashtra   and   the   Chief   Executive   Officer   of   Zilla   Parishad,
Page  1  of  13

Washim   to   initiate   steps   to   recover   all   amounts   paid   to   the
appellant   herein.   Further,   direction   is   also   issued   to   file
appropriate police complaints in the matter. 
3. Though   the   writ   petition   in   which   the   impugned   order
was   passed   is   considered   as   a   petition   in   public   interest,   the
genesis of  the  same  is  necessary  to  be noted  so as  to  consider
whether   an   order   of   the   present   nature   is   justified   in   the
instant   case   without   reference   to   the   contractual   obligation
between the parties. 
4. The   Zilla   Parishad,   Washim   had   issued   an   e­tender
notice for purchase of E­learning kits under the Sarva Shiksha
Abhiyan scheme. The notification inviting tender was published
on   the   website   vide   letter   No.1/2014­2015   dated   13.06.2014.
An   advertisement   was   also   published   in   the   local   newspapers.
The   tender   was   to   be   opened   on   10.07.2014   at   17:00   hours.
Due  to  technical   glitch  the   same  could  not   be  opened,  but  the
e­tenders were opened on 11.07.2014. However, due to certain
lacunae   in   the   process   committed   by   all   the   tenderers,   the   e­
tender   was   published   afresh   on   13.06.2014,   both   on   the
website   as   well   as   in   the   local   newspapers.   The   opening   of   e­
tender   was   scheduled   on   19.08.2014   at   11:00   am.   The   four
Page  2  of  13

tenderers,   namely   the   appellant,   respondents   2,   3   and   5   had
participated in the tender process. In the ultimate analysis the
5 th
 respondent’s concern namely M/s Kasturi Suppliers, Nagpur
was   technically   disqualified   due   to   which   the   financial   bid   of
the   remaining   three   tenderers   were   opened.   The   appellant
herein   being   the   lowest,   was   awarded   the   supply   order   dated
19.08.2014   for   supplying   the   E­learning   Kits   to   22   Zilla
Parishad Schools. 
5. The   respondent   No.5   herein   claiming   to   be   aggrieved   by
the tender process whereby they had been disqualified, filed the
writ   petition   before   the   Bombay   High   Court.   The   challenge   in
the   writ   petition   was   therefore   to   the   tender   process   whereby
the respondent No.5 was disqualified and the supply order was
ultimately   placed   with   the   appellant.   The   High   Court   by   order
dated   06.04.2015   did   not   see   reason   to   entertain   the   writ
petition   on   the   issue  relating   to   the   grievance  put   forth   by   the
respondent No.5 with regard to the tender process wherein they
were   disqualified   since   several   disputed   questions   of   fact   arise
for consideration and work order was already implemented. The
High   Court   in   that   view,   through   order   dated   13.04.2015   took
cognizance   of   the   writ   petition   in   public   interest   while
Page  3  of  13

continuing   to   retain   the   petitioner   who   was   a   business
competitor and proceeded further with the matter only because
the amount was released in haste. In the said process, the High
Court   was   of   the   opinion   that   there   was   a   prima­facie   case   to
conduct   inquiry   into   the   handling   of   matter   by   the   then   Chief
Executive Officer of Zilla Parishad, Mr. Ruchesh Jaivanshi. 
6. Further, the High Court also took note of the contentions
put­forth   by   respondent   No.5   herein,   a   business   competitor   of
the   appellant   that   on   an   average,   in   the   other   Zilla   Parishads
similar equipment had been procured at a price which is lesser
by   Rs.90,000/   to   Rs.1,00,000/­   per   unit.   Certain   other
discrepancies were also referred to. In that light, the High Court
through   the   order   dated   08.09.2014   directed   the   parties   to
maintain   status­quo   and   the   petitioner   was   directed   to   serve
the   respondents.   Pursuant   thereto,   the   response   was   filed   by
the   respondents   to   the   writ   petition   and   a   consideration   was
made   by   the   High   Court.   In   the   said   process,   the   High   Court
had   directed   the   respondent   No.4   herein   to   secure   details
relating  to   similar   systems   which   were   supplied  to   the   schools
in   the   other   Zilla   Parishads   in   the   State   and   also   the   price   at
which it was procured. 
Page  4  of  13

7. When   the   writ   petition   was   listed   before   the   Court   on
07.12.2015   it   was   indicated   to   the   Court   that   an   appropriate
inquiry   would   be   made   and   a   report   would   be   submitted.
Accordingly,   an   inquiry   report   was   submitted,   to   which
response   was   filed   by   the   appellant   herein   in   the   form   of   an
additional written submission. Further, affidavit of Mr. Ruchesh
Jaivanshi,   CEO,   Zilla   Parishad   was   placed   on   record.   In   that
background,   the   High   Court   had   been   informed   that   the
Headmaster of the school is responsible for clearing the supply
and   installation   of   kits,   which   had   been   done.   It   was   further
brought to the notice that the upgradation of the software and
the training could not be performed by the appellant herein due
to the order of status­quo. The High Court noted the nature of
the   supplies   made   by   the   appellant   to   the   schools   under   the
Zilla   Parishad,   Washim   and   observed   that   the   supply   order   at
Gadchiroli   Zilla   Panchayat   was   issued   to   the   respondent   No.2
herein,   also   by   same   CEO.       Since   both   these   suppliers   had
participated   in   both   the   places,   the   High   Court   has   assumed
foul   play   and   has   abruptly   arrived   at   the   conclusion   that   the
State   Government   and   the   Chief   Executive   Officer   of   Zilla
Parishad, Washim are to proceed in the matter  as per  law and
Page  5  of  13

initiate   steps   to   recover   all   amounts   paid   to   the   appellant
herein   and   further   directed  the   filing   of   police  complaints.  The
appellant   being   successful   in   the   tender   process   regarding
which no fault was found is aggrieved by the directions issued
by the High Court to recover the amount despite the kits being
supplied by him. 
8. We   have   heard   Ms.   Bansuri   Swaraj,   learned   counsel   for
the appellant and Shri Hrishikesh Chitaley, learned counsel for
the respondent No.5. The respondents No.1 to 4 though served
are   unrepresented.   We   have   perused   the   appeal   papers
including the counter­affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent
No.5.
9.  At the outset, as already noted the genesis of the petition
was   the   challenge   to   the   tender   process   wherein   the   appellant
had   succeeded   and  the  supply   order  was   placed   on   them.  The
writ   petition   though   ultimately   considered   as   being   in   public
interest was initiated by the respondent No.5 herein who is the
proprietor   of   M/s   Kasturi   suppliers,   one   of   the   participants   in
the   tender   process   who   had   failed   in   the   technical   evaluation.
Hence,   essentially   what   is   to   be   taken   note   is   that   the   writ
petition entertained by the High Court though ultimately styled
Page  6  of  13

as in public interest was initiated by a rival business competitor
who had also participated in the tender process and failed. The
reason for  which the High Court had thought it fit to treat the
petition in public interest is due to the contentions put forth by
such   rival   business   establishment   which   had   failed   in   the
tender   process.   The   contention   was   with   regard   to   the
difference   in   price   of   the   kits   supplied   to   Zilla   Parishad,
Washim   and   to   the   schools   in   other   Zilla   Parishads.   It   is   no
doubt   true   that   the   High   Court   thereafter   directed   the
respondent   No.4   herein   –   State   of   Maharashtra   to   place   on
record   the   affidavits   indicating   the   details   pertaining   to   such
purchase   of   E­learning   kits   by   the   other   Zilla   Parishads   and
also   the   process   adopted   by   the   Zilla   Parishad,   Washim.   The
State   Government   had   accordingly   made   an   inquiry   on   this
aspect and  an inquiry  report at Annexure P­14 to  this petition
was   filed   before   the   High   Court.   A   perusal   of   the   order
impugned   passed   by   the   High   Court   does   not   indicate   any
reference made to the details contained in the inquiry report or
to   the   subsequent   affidavit   filed   by   the   then   CEO   of   the   Zilla
Parishad  so   as  to   analyse   and   arrive   at   its   conclusion.   On   the
other   hand,   the   High   Court   has   abruptly   proceeded   to   direct
Page  7  of  13

the recovery of the amount from the appellant and also directed
to proceed further in the matter by filing complaints.
10. A   perusal   of   the   inquiry   report   would   indicate   that   it
refers to three dimensions (i) it relates to the manner in which
the funds have been utilised by the Zilla Parishad, Washim, (ii)
it   refers   to   the   tender   process   wherein   the   four   tenderers   had
participated   and   the   appellant   being   the   lowest   tenderer   and
(iii)  the  report  refers to  comparative  statement  of  the  purchase
of   E­learning   kits   by   the   various   Zilla   Parishads   and   the   price
at   which   it   was   procured.   Though,   certain   observations   have
been   made   in   the   inquiry   report   indicating   that   the   Zilla
Parishad had not appropriately dealt with the funds which had
been allotted for other purposes but had diverted the same for
purchase   of   E­learning   kits,   that   is   an   aspect   for   which   the
appellant cannot be faulted. The appellant, like the respondent
No.5  had  participated in  the  tender   process in  response  to  the
notification   which   was   published   both   on   the   website   and   the
newspapers.  It was  not  for  the  appellant  to   find  out  as  to   how
the   project   was   funded.   In   terms   of   the   tender,   the   bids   were
submitted   and   ultimately   the   supplies   were   made.   For
acknowledging   that   the   kits   have   been   supplied   and   installed,
Page  8  of  13

the   certificate   was   required   to  be   issued   by  the   Chairman  and
Secretary   of   the   School   Management   Committee   as   per
condition   No.5   to   the   supply   order.   The   Headmaster   of   the
school   is   also   the   Secretary   of   the   School   Management
Committee and as such the certificates issued indicate that the
supplies were made is the contention on behalf of the appellant.
In any event, the High Court has not recorded a finding that the
supplies   were   not   made   by   the   appellant   and   the   installation
had   not   been   completed.   In   fact,   the   High   Court   by   its   earlier
order dated 06.04.2015 had declined to entertain the challenge
to   the   tender   process   since   the   work   order   was   already
implemented even as on the date when notice was issued in the
writ petition on 08.09.2014.
11. Even that be so, since the supply order had been issued
in favour  of the appellant, the supplies will have to conform to
the  terms and  conditions failing   which  the  official  respondents
in   any   event   would   have   the   right   to   proceed   against   the
appellant pursuant to the terms of contract. Such proceeding in
any event will have to be conducted after providing opportunity
to   the   appellant.   At   this   stage,   no   such   process   has   been
conducted.   As   such   the   recovery   of   the   amount   ordered   is
Page  9  of  13

premature.   The   lacuna   noticed   by   the   inquiry   committee
relatable to the appellant is that, appellant has not updated the
software   and   that   the   training   of   the   teachers   for   two   days   as
agreed has not been conducted. In that regard, the explanation
put­forth   by   the   learned   counsel   for   the   appellant   is   that   the
appellant though was willing to comply with the terms of supply
order,   the   same   could   not   be   done   in   view   of   the   status­quo
order dated 08.09.2014 passed by the High Court which was in
force   during   the   pendency   of   writ   petition.   To   that   extent,   we
find the explanation to be justified but the appellant cannot be
absolved   of   their   obligation   and   they   will   have   to   perform   the
same at least at this stage and the payment towards that will be
subject to compliance. Hence, the appellant shall undertake the
upgrading   of   software   as   agreed   under   the   contract   and   also
impart   training   to   the   teachers.   However,   at   this   distant   point
of   time   if   the   same   is   not   technically   and   practically   feasible,
the   appellant   cannot   be   allowed   to   enrich   themselves   to   that
extent   and   the   proportionate   amount   will   be   deductible   after
following   due   process.   However,   the   entire   payment   for   the
supplies   made   also   cannot   be   recalled   as   ordered   by   the   High
Page  10  of  13

Court   since   the   cost   of   equipment   already   installed   cannot   be
denied.
12. Further,   with   regard   to   the   statement   contained   in   the
inquiry   report   relating   to   the   purchase   made   by   the   various
Zilla   Parishads,   there   is   no   clear   finding   in   the   report   as   to
whether the payment of the price as quoted by the appellant is
justified   or   if  it   is  exorbitant   and   whether   over   quoted   amount
is   approved.   Be   that   as   it   may,   the   supply   of   E­learning   kits
being   of   different   types,   the   further   details   relating   to   the
configuration; the features; the brand and such other technical
details   are   necessary   to   compare   the   different   sets   of   devices
supplied   which   is   not   an   exercise   that   can   be   done   in   a
proceeding   of   the   present   nature,   but   it   is   left   to   the   official
respondents to look into that aspect. 
13. In   that   circumstance,   the   withdrawal   of   the   payment
made   to   the   appellant   and   restraint   against   balance   payment
without   reference   to   all   these   aspects   would   not   be   justified.
However, the ends of justice would be met if liberty is reserved
to  the respondent  No.4 to  provide  opportunity  to the  appellant
and   the   Zilla   Parishad   concerned   and   take   stock   of   the   actual
supplies made by the appellant. In that regard, an appropriate
Page  11  of  13

conclusion shall be reached as to whether the payment made is
commensurate to the supplies already made by the appellant in
furtherance   to   the   terms   agreed   in   the   contract.   Further,   with
regard   to   the   upgradation   of   the   software   agreed   under   the
contract   the   same   be   also   completed.   With   regard   to   the
determination   to   be   made   in   that   regard,   if   the   appellant   has
any   grievance,   liberty   is   reserved   to   avail   the   remedy   in
accordance   with   law   before   the   appropriate   forum.   If   the
upgradation   and   training   is   undertaken   and   the   appellant
justifies the balance payment, there shall be no impediment to
release the same.
14. It   is   relevant   to   take   note   that   Mr.   Ruchesh   Jaivanshi,
the   then   CEO   of   Zilla   Parishad   was   before   this   Court   in   SLP
No.13869/2018   assailing   the   same   order   dated   24.02.2018.
This   Court   by   order   dated   09.05.2018   clarified   that   all
proceedings   referred   in   paragraph   12   of   the   impugned
judgment will be with the participation of the petitioner therein
and   the   proceedings   shall   be   taken   up   on   their   own   merits
being   uninfluenced   by   any   observations   in   the   impugned
judgment. The said order will apply in so far the proceedings if
any   in   the   action   contemplated   against   the   then   CEO.   Insofar
Page  12  of  13

as the appellant herein who was a party to the writ petition, all
action shall be in the manner as indicated herein.
15.   In   the   light   of   the   above,   the   order   dated   24.02.2018
passed by  the  High Court, impugned herein is not  sustainable
and the same is set aside.
16. The   appeal   is   accordingly   allowed   subject   to   the   above
observations. There shall be no order as to costs.
17. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
……………………….J.
(HEMANT GUPTA)
                                                     ……………………….J.
                                               (A.S. BOPANNA)
New Delhi,
August 17, 2021 
Page  13  of  13