High CourtsSingle Bench(2021) 05 UK CK 0029

M/s B.K. Industries & Others vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 13 May 2021

HON’BLE JUDGES
Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 991, 994, 995, 996, 997 Of 2021

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

20 paragraphs · 376 words

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J

1.

Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing.

2.

Since common question of law and facts are involved in these writ petitions, therefore are being taken up together and are being adjudicated by this

common judgment. However, for the sake of brevity, facts of WPMS No. 991 of 2021 are being considered.

3.

Petitioner is a Small Scale Industrial Unit, which is engaged in manufacture of lighting equipment including L.E.D. lamps.

4.

By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought following reliefs:

“i) To issue a Writ, order or direction in the nature of ‘Mandamus’ by directing and commanding the commanding the respondent no. 3 to

allow the petitioner to in compliance of the Government Order No. 261/VII-2-14/143 -Udyog/2003 dated 19-03-2014 (Annexure no. 2) and to provide

all the necessary preferential benefits to the petitioner as per the rules framed in pursuance of the above stated Government Order.

ii) To issue a Writ, order or direction in the nature of ‘Mandamus’ by directing and commanding the commanding the respondent no. 2 for

compliance of the rules framed vide the Government Order dated 19 -03-2014 (Annexure no. 2) for all Municipal Corporations and Nagar Palika

Parishad in the State of Uttarakhand.

iii) To issue a Writ, order or direction in the nature of ‘Mandamus’ by directing and commanding the commanding the respondent no. 2 to direct

the respondent no. 3 to provide preferential benefits to the petitioner in compliance of the letter no. 50/1408/2015 dated 07-04-2016.â€​

5.

In sum and substance, case of the petitioner is that he is entitled to preferential treatment in the matter of award of contract; however, those

benefits are not being extended to the petitioner.

6.

Having regard to the nature of relief claimed in the writ petition, this Court thinks that ends of justice would be met, if petitioner is permitted to make

a representation to the Competent Authority, which shall be decided in accordance with law.

7.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Competent Authority to take decision on petitioner’s representation, if made

within two weeks from today, in accordance with law. Such decision shall be taken, as early as possible but, not later than six months.