B.K. Industries vs State of Uttarakhand and Others

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.—The petitioner is common in all the aforesaid writ petitions. The petitioner is proprietorship firm, which is engaged in manufacturing of electrical appliances. The factories of petitioner are situated at Almora and Udham Singh Nagar, which are in the State of Uttarakhand. The petitioner claims to be a small-scale industry as well. The sole grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents i.e. local authorities (like Nagar Palika Parishad Almora, Nagar Nigam Dehradun, Nagar Palika Parishad Kashipur, Nagar Palika Parishad Tanakpur, Nagar Palika Parishad Haridwar, Nagar Palika Parishad Pauri Garhwal, Nagar Palika Parishad Ramnagar, Nagar Palika Didihat, Nagar Palika Parishad Jaspur, Nagar Palika Parishad Rishikesh, Nagar Panchayat Lalkuan, Nagar Palika Parishad Uttarkashi, Nagar Palika Parishad Bageshwar, Nagar Panchayat Lohaghat, as well as the statutory creation such as Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd.) in the State of Uttarakhand have issued advertisements calling for tenders from those who are manufacturer and suppliers of electrical appliances. However, there is a condition stipulated in the said advertisements which calls for electrical appliances, only if they are manufacturer by a particular "Company or Brand" in most of these cases. These companies are mentioned as Philips, Havells or Bajaj, by name.

The sole grievance of the petitioner is that this has been done in order to give benefit only to above Companies and since the petitioner does not manufacture electrical equipments of these companies, he in any case is ruled out from the tender process and he cannot give offer to supply of such electrical equipments.

The State of Uttarakhand has filed counter affidavit in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 776 of 2012, which has been sworn by the Additional Secretary, Finance, Government of Uttarakhand, the relevant paragraph of which reads as under:-

2(B) That it is submitted that as evidence from the advertisement issued by the respondent No. 3 the same has been issued for the supply of items mentioned therein only for the two companies namely; Havills/Bajaj and this fact itself reveals that the tender notice, impugned in the present writ petition, is not fair and transparent rather the same have been issued only for the said two companies that too without there being any specification or quality of the items of those two companies mentioned in the advertisement.

The counter affidavits filed by local authorities in some of the writ petitions, which have been perused. Some of the counsel appearing on behalf of local authorities have fairly submitted that the tender by which the items of a particular "Company or Brand" are being requisitioned is unfair and unjust, and they have either already recalled such advertisement or have also permitted the petitioner to apply in the same.

This Court is in complete agreement with the proposition of the petitioner, which has also been fairly admitted by some of the respondents. Some of the counsel submitted that they have amended the tender advertisement or going to change the condition and extending the tender process for which the petitioner is at liberty to make its offer. Learned counsel for the petitioner admits that he is aware of this fact.

It is, therefore, made clear that where there was specific demand of a particular Brand or Company and the tender have not been finalize as yet such local authorities will recall its advertisement give a fresh advertisement calling for eligible firm and manufacturers for supply the electrical equipments without specifying the name of any particular Company or Brand so that all eligible Companies may apply. However, in case, tender has already been finalize in favour of any Company and contract signed no interference can be made presently in the present writ petition with such tenders, however, in future all such authorities shall refrain for calling from any particular Company or Brand of items.

It is, however, made clear that while calling for eligible persons or companies the respondents are free to prescribe any condition which is valid, fair and just such as technical capability and standards of the company or any such conditions, which are fair, reasonable and just. However, they must refrain from calling any item of a particular Company or Brand, which on the face of it is unfair.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs.