WPMS/1644/2016 of Gagan Deep Singh Vs Uttarakhand Bhawan Evam Anya Sahanirman Karmkar Kalyan Board Haldwani AND OTHERS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Writ Petition No.1644 of 2016 (M/S)

Gagan Deep Singh

… Petitioner

State of Uttarakhand & others … Respondents

Mr. I. D. Paliwal, Advocate present for the petitioner.

Mr. Sayed Nadim, Standing Counsel present for the State of Uttarakhand.

U. C. Dhyani, J. (Oral)

1.By means of present writ petition, the petitioner seeks following reliefs, among others:

“(i) issue writ or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned advertisement dated 6.6.2016. (ii) Issue writ or order in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to initiate ongoing tender process as per the aforesaid advertisement dated 6.6.2016 till the pendency of this writ petition.

(iii) issue writ or order in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to permit other dealers/brands who are fulfilling the requirements of ISI mark and also fulfilling the requirements of the tender notice.”

2.The facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the Labour Department, Government of Uttarakhand issued notice/advertisement dated 06.06.2016 inviting tenders for supply of sewing machines to the Labour Department from two particular brands, i.e., Singar and Usha. The petitioner is the supplier and dealer of different sewing machines. He is also having dealership of Sanjog and Puja sewing machines. Both sewing machine company are duly given certificate of ISI mark

by the Government of India. The Government of Uttarakhand has launched welfare scheme to provide sewing machines to the labours. In the past also, such scheme was launched by the Labour Department. Earlier, the Labour Department invited tenders for supply of sewing machines from various companies. But this time, the Labour Department issued the impugned notice inviting tenders for supply of sewing machines to the Labour Department only from two particular brands, i.e., Singer and Usha. It has clearly been stipulated in the tender notice that only those persons, who are having dealership of Singer and Usha can submit their tenders, hence, present writ petition.

3.It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that there are so many brands of sewing machines having ISI mark available in the market, which are selling at lower price. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent authority, by not inviting tenders from the dealers of other sewing machine brands, has given undue advantage to the dealers of Singer and Usha. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the said act of respondent is illegal and arbitrary. In other words, the grievance of the petitioner is that the action of the respondent seems to be tailored in order to favour the aforesaid particular companies.

4.Thus, the advertisement has been assailed by the petitioner on the ground that it specifies particular brands like Singer and Usha. The sole question, which arises for consideration of this Court is – whether the same is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India? Although, in the grounds of writ petition, the petitioner has also stated that the action of respondents is violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution, but it cannot by any stretch of imagination be said that the matter relates to

equality of opportunity in matters of public employment and protection of life and personal liberty.

5.Article 14 of the Constitution would apply only when invidious discrimination is meted out to equals and similarly circumstanced without any rational basis or relationship in that behalf. Equal treatment of unequals is not liable to be struck down as discriminatory unless there is simultaneous absence of rational relation to the object intended to be achieved. Equality of treatment under Article 14 is an objective test. It is not the test of intention.

6.In Union of India vs. Paliwal Electricals (P) Ltd. & another, (1996) 3 SCC 407 (which was affirmed and applied in Union of India vs. J.J. Electricals & another, (1998) 9 SCC 88), it was held that the provision, excluding the goods affixed with brand name or trade name of person from the benefit of exemption to the specified goods from the excise duty subject to the condition that the annual turnover was within the prescribed limit, was held to be notviolative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

7.In the instant case, the action of the respondents does not appear to be arbitrary. The invitation of tender to supply sewing machines from the dealers of Singer and Usha does not appear to be irrational or discriminatory. The notice inviting tenders only from the particular brands, i.e, Singer and Usha does not appear to be arbitrary and the petitioner cannot complain that the rest of the sewing machine brands should have been permitted to submit their tenders. It does not appear from perusal of the documents brought on record that the respondents, by not inviting tenders from rest of the sewing machine brands, have an intention to give undue advantage to Singer and Usha. It is not

the case of the petitioner that the respondents have an intention to give undue benefit to particular brand.

8.By set of imagination, the Court cannot grant relief as desired by the petitioner. The writ petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed at the admission stage itself.

9.Let certified copy of this order be supplied to learned counsel for the petitioner within 48 hours, on payment of usual charges.

(U. C. Dhyani, J.)

Dated 14[th] June, 2016 Rawat