M M Group v. State Of Tripura Andors




 

    

   !
a
Partnership
Firm,
registered
under
the
Indian
Partnership
Act,
1932
having
Registration
No.72364
and
its
office
at
DCR
Market,
MRS
Building,
2nd
Floor,
Post
Office
and
District
-
Malda,
PIN+732101,
West
Bengal
through
the
authorized
representative
Sri
Uma
Sankar
Bhaduri,
son
of
late
Tarapada
Bhaduri
holding
the
post
of
Technical
Advisor
of
the
petitioner

 ""



#$%$%&# '(# ))' *#+$,$# % ,!
service
through
its
Secretary,
Department
of
Minority
Affairs,
Government
of
Tripura,
New
Capital
Complex,
Secretariat
Building,
P.O.
Kunjaban,
Agartala,
PIN+7999006

*#-% #.$ !
Directorate
of
Welfare
of
Minorities,
Government
of
Tripura,
Old
Secretariat
Complex,
Agartala,
Tripura,
PIN
+799001
/*# &%&
&0%,!


service
through
the
Secretary,
Department
of
Minority
Affairs,
Government
of
India,
11th
Floor,
Paryavaran
Bhawan,
CGO
Complex,
Lodhi
Road,
New
Delhi
+
110003

 *#1 %2*$ $ #3! a
proprietorship
firm,
represented
by
its
proprietor,
namely
Mr.

45 1

  61
 7 +


- 8

  61

7 +
+  
For
the
petitioner
















:

Mr.
K.
Jyoti
Tewari,
Advocate




Mr.
P.
Majumder,
Advocate

For
the
respondents









:

Mr.
B.C.
Das,
Advocate
General,



Mr.
T.D.
Majumder,
G.A.




Mr.
S.
Deb,
Sr.
Advocate,



Mr.
B.
Majumder,
C.G.C.



Ms.
A.S.
Lodh,
Addl.
G.A.




Mr.
B.
Debnath,
Advocate



Date
of
hearing
and
delivery
:

/ of
judgment
and
order

Whether
it
is
fit
for
reporting
:








B#)  √
 - 9 -  
   

  The
Central
Government
has
a
scheme,
known
as
the
Multi+sectoral
Development
Programme,
the
MsDP
in
short,
run
by
the
Ministry
of
Minority
Affairs,
Government
of
India.
The
purpose
of
this
programme
is
to
provide
vocational
training
and
imparting
development
skills
to
the
young
persons
belonging
to
the
minority
communities.
Funds
are
provided
by
the
Central
Government
to
the
State
Governments
for
implementation
of
the
MsDP.
In
this
regard,
we
may
make
reference
to
the
letter
dated
28.01.2014,
Annexure+ R/1
to
the
reply
filed
by
the
Central
Government,
the
Union
of
India.
The
relevant
portion
reads
as
follows:
:::%%*#+;%<< ,%&%&2

2 ,33#)*<0=# %3 <#3#&$#0 $* 2*

# $#0 );%<< $ ,%&%&2  2,&%>,$%&) ?*%.* 3,@ =# #3 ,&#<<#0   $*#

)#  #%$*#  =@ $*# #&$ ,< A# &3#&$  $*# +$,$# A# &3#&$ $* 2* , $ ,&) , #&$

.#)) : : : :

,2#

4/5 :::B 3,@ ,<) .&)<$ $*# -# , $3#&$  $*# +$,$# A$ 0#,<%&2 ?%$* $*# )=C#.$  +;%<< -#A#< 3#&$:::D Along
with
this
reply,
there
are
3(three)
lists
attached
which
given
the
names
of
the
organizations/institutions/agencies
which
have
been
selected
for
this
purpose.
45 A
bare
reading
of
Clause
2(ii)
quoted
hereinabove,
would
clearly
indicates
that
the
States
are
required
to
implement
the
Skill
Training
Programmes
through
reputed
skill
training
organizations.
These
organizations
can
be
empanelled
either
by
the
Central
Government
or
the
State
Government.
It
is
however,
clear
that
a
transparent
process
has
to
be
followed.

The
list
of
organizations/institutions/agencies
selected
by
the
Ministry
of
Minority
Affairs,
Government
of
India
for
12th
Five
Year
Plan
was
enclosed
and
the
names
are
mentioned
in
the
three
lists
referred
to
above.
A
mandate
is
given
to
the
States
to
select
any
organization
from
these
lists
based
on
relevant
criteria
and
after
following
proper
procedure.




4/5 According
to
us,
the
only
interpretation
which
can
be
given
to
this
Clause
is
that
the
State
can
only
choose
one
of
the
organizations/institutions/agencies
selected
by
the
Ministry
of
Minority
Affairs,
Govt.
of
India
and
whose
names
find
mention
in
one
of
the
three
lists
and
the
State
cannot
choose
any
other
persons.

We
may
however
make
it
clear
that
if
the
State
after
following
some
proper
procedures
makes
a
list
of
certain
empanelled
organizations
it
may
have
the
power
to
do
so.

,2#/

45 also
have
some
say
in
the
matter
and
will
have
to
approve
the
empanelment
made
by
the
State.
The
Central
Government
is
the
final
authority
to
decide
whether
the
organization
is
actually
competent
enough
to
carry
on
this
work
or
not.
45 Coming
to
the
facts
of
this
case,
a
notice
was
published
in
various
newspapers
inviting
Expression
of
Interest
from
the
empanelled
organizations/institutions/agencies
of
Ministry
of
Minority
Affairs,
Govt.
of
India
for
skill
development
training.
The
words
used
are
empanelled
institutes/organizations.
The
relevant
portion
of
the
Notice
inviting
Expression
of
Interest
reads
as
follows:

E:::: &0# $*#,=A#.&$#F$!$*%)
%)%&A%$#0  3 $*# #3 ,&#<<#0 $ ,%&%&2 %&)$%$$#G 2,&%),$%& $ )=3%$ $#.*&%.,<

 ),<) %3 , $%&2);%<<0#A#< 3#&$$ ,%&%&2 $$*#3%& %$@@$*):::: :::: 

H  

  


+
 G 
I
 *# <<?%&2 , # #J% #3#&$)  $*# $ ,%&%&2 %&)$%$$#K *#
&)$%$$#)G 2,&%>,$%&) )*,<< *,A#3%&%33 @#, )#F # %#&.# 1 *#
&)$%$$#)G 2,&%>,$%&) )*,<< =# #3 ,&#<<#0 &0#

%&%)$ @ 

%& %$@,% )!A# &3#&$
&0%, :::: 8 *# %&)$%$$#)G 2,&%),$%& 3)$ *,A# $ )=3%$ )  $%&2 0.3#&$)

#2, 0%&2 #3 ,&#<3#&$  %&%)$ @ 

%& %$@ ,% )! A# &3#&$ 
&0%,  %3 , $%&2 );%<< 0#A#< 3#&$ $ ,%&%&2&0# )-  $#K*#0#$,%<),)3#&$%&#0,=A# 3)$ =# )=3%$$#0 ?%$* $*# =%0 ,<&2 ?%$*)  $%&20.3#&$)::::::D


5 After
having
gone
through
the
letter
dated
28.01.2014,
we
are
of
the
view
that
these
conditions
are
not
strictly
in
accordance

,2#

5 with
the
guidelines
laid
down
in
the
letter
dated
28.01.2014.
In
fact,
it
is
the
admitted
case
of
all
the
parties
before
us
that
the
Ministry
of
Minority
Affairs,
Govt.
of
India
has
in
fact
not
empanelled
any
organizations/institutions/agencies.
However,
the
fact
remains
that
the
Ministry
of
Minority
Affairs,
Govt.
of
India
has
selected
certain
organizations/institutions/agencies
and
therefore,
those
agencies
will
have
to
be
treated
as
the
empanelled
agencies.
It
is
clearly
stated
that
the
organizations/institutions
shall
be
empanelled
under
the
Ministry
of
Minority
Affairs,
Govt.
of
India
but
we
have
been
informed
at
the
Bar
that
in
fact
there
are
no
organizations/institutions
which
have
been
directly
empanelled
by
the
Ministry
of
Minority
Affairs,
Govt.

of
India
for
this
MsDP.
The
requirement
of
the
notice
was
also
that
the
organizations/institutions/agencies
have
to
submit
supporting
documents
regarding
empanelment
by
the
Ministry
of
Minority
Affairs,
Govt.
of
India
for
imparting
skill
development
training
under
MsDP.

4L5


It
is
true
that
the
Ministry
of
Minority
Affairs,
Govt.
of
India
has
not
empanelled
any
institute
or
organization
under
the
MsDP
but
with
the
letter
dated
28.01.2014,
the
lists
of
selected
skill
development
organizations
have
been
enclosed.

  programme.
Be
that
as
it
may,
once
along
with
the
letter
dated
28.01.2014
issued
by
the
Central
Government
these
lists
are
enclosed,
the
State
Governments
were
bound
to
follow
the
said
lists.
Unfortunately,
in
the
present
case
in
the
State
of
Tripura,
the

,2# 

4L5 Director,
Welfare
of
Minorities
who
considered
the
expression
of
interest
did
not
realize
that
out
of
4(four)
institutes
who
had
submitted
expression
of
interest,
the
names
of
3(three)
institutes
did
not
even
find
mention
in
any
of
the
three
lists.
Despite
that
and
without
issuing
any
corrigendum
to
the
notice
or
without
cancelling
the
original
notice
inviting
expression
of
interest
and
without
issuing
fresh
notice
inviting
expression
of
interest,
virtually
the
terms
and
conditions
of
the
notice
inviting
expression
of
interest
were
changed
and
tenders
have
been
awarded
in
favour
of
four
institutions,
out
of
whom
only
the
name
of
one
appears
in
the
list
and
the
other
three
do
not
appear
in
the
list.

4M5 As
far
as
the
petitioner
is
concerned,
his
grievance
was
only
against
the
respondent
No.4, Bright
Future.Com
and
it
was
claimed
by
the
petitioner
that
Bright
Future.Comwas
not
empanelled
or
approved
by
the
Ministry
of
Minority
Affairs,
Government
of
India
and
therefore,
could
not
have
been
awarded
the
work.
On
3rd
November,
2015
after
hearing
the
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner,
one
of
us

    had
issued
notice
and
directed
that
even
if
the
work
order
had
been
issued
in
favour
of
the
respondent
No.4,
the
same
shall
not
be
acted
upon
by
the
respondents
in
future.

45 After
reply
was
filed,
a
preliminary
objection
was
raised
on
behalf
of
the
respondents
that
the
petitioner
had
challenged
the
award
of
work
only
to
one
of
the
selected
parties
and
not
to
all
the
selected
parties
and
therefore,
the
petition
should
be
thrown
out.

,2#L

4M5 grievance
is
that
the
tender
of
the
respondent
No.4
does
not
fulfill
the
requirement
of
following
the
terms
and
conditions
of
the
notice
inviting
expression
of
interest
and
therefore,
he
has
limited
his
challenge
to
the
respondent
No.4
only.

45 We
had
in
our
order
dated
30th
November,
2015
had
a
 

  found
that
not
only
the
respondent
No.4
but
even
ECIL/ECIT
and
KELTRON
do
not
fulfill
the
essential
requirements
since
the
names
of
these
two
institutions
are
also
not
mentioned
in
the
lists
attached
with
the
letter
dated
28.01.2014.
On
30th
November,
2015,
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner
restricted
his
challenge
only
to
respondent
No.4.

45


As
far
as
the
preliminary
objection
is
concerned,
it
need
not
bother
us
now.
The
training
was
to
be
carried
out
for
a
period
of
three
months.
The
agreements
were
entered
into
with
all
the
parties
at
the
end
of
September
or
the
beginning
of
October
and
three
months
are
about
to
elapse
in
all
the
cases
and
therefore,
we
do
not
feel
it
necessary
to
deal
with
the
other
two
institutions
who
are
not
parties
before
us.

We,
however,
cannot
throw
out
the
petition
only
on
the
ground
that
the
petitioner
has
challenged
award
of
the
works
to
one
institution
and
not
to
the
others.
As
far
as
the
respondent
No.4
is
concerned,
reliance
has
been
placed
by
the
respondent
No.4
on
a
Certificate
of
Empanelment
issued
by
the
Aliah
University.
The
relevant
portion
of
which
reads
as
follows:
E*%) %) $ .# $%@ $*,$ 1 %2*$ $ # 3 %) #3 ,&#<<#0 ,) (.

A%0# ) ( )   %3 , $%&2 );%<< 0#A#< 3#&$ $ ,%&%&2 &0# )-

2 ,33#! %&%)$ @  %& %$@

,2#M

45 ,% )! A$ 
&0%, ,2,%&)$ 

 03&N GN 0,$#0D 45 There
is
no
date
on
this
certificate.
This
was
the
certificate
which
was
filed
along
with
the
tender
documents.
We
have
compared
the
original
documents
filed
with
the
tender.
That
also
bears
no
date.
One
of
the
conditions
of
the
tender
was
that
the
parties
must
have
4
to
5
years
experience.
Therefore,
assuming
that
the
empanelment
was
proper,
then
also
the
absence
of
the
date
would
clearly
indicates
that
the
period
for
which
the
certificate
had
been
issued
could
not
be
determined.
We
are
also
of
the
view
that
the
Aliah
University
has
no
right
to
issue
such
certificate.
No
document
has
been
placed
before
us
to
show
that
Aliah
University
is
entitled
to
empanel
any
organization.

The
documents
which
have
been
placed
before
us
clearly
show
that
the
empanelment/selection
should
be
of
the
Ministry
of
Minority
Affairs,
Government
of
India.

C#.$#)$1#&2,< *#  .&)%0# #0 $*# C#.$  ),<)  +;%<<  ,%&%&2

2 ,33#)=3%$$#0=@$*#+$,$#A$  #)$ 1#&2,< %&

#) #.$ 

%& %$@ &.#&$ ,$%& 1<.;)  1)   0%)$ %.$) &,3#<@! 1% =*3! 1 0?,&!

)*%0,=,0! ,0%,! .* 1#*, !  $* 

, 2,&,! +$* 

, 2,&,! $$, -%&,C !-,;)*%&-%&,C ! ,<0,! ?

,*! 7,< ,%2 %! #0%&%  ,&0 -, C##<%&2 %&0#&$%%#0   %3 <#3#&$,$%&  )-  0 %&2 $* %A#B#, <,&&0# #)$ .$ #0 )-  +;%<<$ ,%&%&2?%<<=#.&0.$#0&0# $*#,#2%) <<%,* &%A# )%$@=@ , $&# %&2?%$*)3# %A,$# %&)$%$$#) =#)%0#) )3# A$ %&)$%$$# *# $$,< &3=#   . )#)  )#0 , # L%$@ )%F ,) #  $*# <%)$ %& $*# &3=#  *# C#.$ *,) =##&

# , #0%&,.. 0,&.#?%$*$*# +)$ .$ # F #))%& 
&$# #)$   #&<%)$3#&$   ,%&%&2

, $&# ) *,) ,< #,0@ =##& %&A%$#0 $* 2* #N

,2#

45 #&0# %&2 .#))! ?*%.* ?%<< =# %&,<%>#0 ?%$*%& 2)$!D  45 In
our
opinion,
this
does
not
further
the
case
of
the
State
or
the
respondent
No.4
in
any
manner.
These
directions
have
been
given
specifically
in
relation
to
the
skill
training
to
be
conducted
in
West
Bengal
and
in
particular
to
14
districts
in
the
State
of
West
Bengal.
What
has
been
stated
in
the
2nd
part
is
that
the
skill
training
which
has
been
conducted
under
the
aegis
of
Aliah
University
by
partnering
some
private
institutes
besides
Government
institute.
This
does
not
authorize
Aliah
University
to
issue
empanelment
certificate.

All
these
decisions
indicate
that
Aliah
University
will
be
the
main
umbrella
body
in
14
(fourteen)
districts
of
West
Bengal
and
with
the
help
of
Aliah
University,
the
skill
training
programmes
under
the
MsDP
shall
be
conducted.
This
is
not
at
all
relevant
for
the
State
of
Tripura.

 ),< +;%<<$ ,%&%&2 3%& %$@@$*)?,)

#.#%A#0  3 A$   % ,!   LMML $ ,%&##) LL    $ ,0#)  3  =<.;)  $*# +$,$# &0#

)-  *# 3 ?# #0 33%$$## .&)%0# #0$*#  ),<,&0,2 ##0 $ ,%&%&2%& M$ ,0#)&<@%&% )$)$,&.#*#,2 ##0$$*#

 ),<,)<<?)K % *# ,2#&.%#)   %3 , $%&2 +;%<<  ,%&%&2 ?<0 =# )#<#.$#0 %& , $ ,&) , #&$ 3,&&#  .&)%0# %&2 $*# $#.*&%.,< ,=%<%$@  $*# ,2#&.@ *# ,2#&.@)*<0*,A##F # %#&.#/N @#, ) ?%$*

A#& $ ,.;

#. 0 -% #.$ ,$#   ?#<, #  %& %$%#)! A$   % , ?%<< %&A%$#  ),<)  3 # $#0 ,%&%&22#&.%#)*,A%&2 )%.%#&$ #F # %#&.# 

A%0%&2 <,.#3#&$ <%&;#0 +;%<< -#A#< 3#&$  ,%&%&2 %& $*# <%)$#0 $ ,0#) $* 2*  #&$#&0# :::D

,2#

45 4/5 What
is
stated
in
sub+Clause(i)
of
Clause
(ii)is
virtually
a
total
copy
of
what
was
stated
in
Clause
2(ii)
of
the
letter
dated
28.01.2014
except
for
the
fact
that
the
lists
are
not
enclosed
herewith.
When
we
read
these
instructions
along
with
the
letter
dated
28.01.2014,
there
can
be
no
manner
of
doubt
that
only
the
organizations/institutions/agencies
mentioned
in
the
lists
could
be
selected
for
the
purpose
of
imparting
training
to
the
youth
belonging
to
the
minority.
The
purpose
of
the
scheme
is
a
salutary
one.
The
youth
belonging
to
the
minority
communities
have
to
be
trained
and
the
skill
developed
so
that
they
can
earn
their
own
limit.

For
such
a
scheme
to
be
successful,
it
is
essential
that
the
trainers
are
proficient
in
their
job
and
know
what
they
are
doing.
The
funds
for
this
scheme
are
provided
by
the
Central
Government
which
has
approved
certain
bodies
to
impart
training.
The
letters
and
instructions
quoted
hereinabove,
leave
no
manner
of
doubt
that
it
is
only
one
of
these
organizations/institutions
which
can
be
selected
for
this
purpose
unless
the
State
after
following
a
transparent
procedure
empanels
some
other
agency/organizations.
We,
therefore,
have
no
doubt
in
our
mind
that
the
Expression
of
Interest
could
not
have
been
awarded
in
favour
of
the
respondent
No.4,
the
Bright
Future.Com,
ECIL/ECIT
and
KELTRON.

However,
ECIL/ECIT
and
KELTRON
are
not
party
before
us
and
the
period
of
three
months
for
which
they
have
to
impart
training
has
almost
expired.
Since
more
than
2/3rd
of
the
training
has
been
imparted,
it
would
not
now
been
proper
to
issue
notice
to
them
because
by
that
time
we
hear
them,
the
entire
three
period
of
months
would
have
been
elapsed.

,2#

45 Future.Com
is
concerned,
the
work
order
with
regard
to
them
has
already
been
stayed
and
therefore,
we
have
no
hesitation
in
quashing
the
work
order
with
regard
to
the
Bright
Future.
Com
but
we
make
it
clear
that
they
must
be
made
payment
for
the
work
already
done
by
them
but
no
further
work
will
be
done.
As
far
as
the
remaining
work
of
the
Bright
Future.Com
is
concerned,
the
State
is
at
liberty
to
get
it
done
from
the
only
authorized
institute
i.e.
IIIM
or
from
any
other
authorized
institute
mentioned
in
the
lists.
We
will
not
go
into
the
other
aspects
of
Bright
Future.Com
in
this
case.

45
With
these
observation
and
direction,
this
writ
petition
is
allowed
and
disposed
of.

No
costs.



 - 
 7 +
          





,2#