AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, CJ
We have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Government Advocate.
Petitioner challenges what he calls as exclusion of other persons capable of carrying out servicing of equipments in connection with CCTV installation.
The materials on record show that the respondents have Dome Camera, Bullet Camera, LED Display, NVR and other equipments of Hikvision make. They, therefore, invited AMC (Annual Maintenance Contract) from dealers of Hikvision. The fact that such invitations are confined to the dealers of Hikvision is impeached by the Petitioner as amounting to hostile discrimination and exclusion of other players from business. We are unable to accept this plea. The equipment installed are of Hikvision make. The Respondents, with their responsibility, have found it necessary to have people who are acclimatized with maintenance of Hikvision products, to carry out the annual maintenance of those equipments. May be, AMC may also include certain responsibilities to provide some spare parts etc. It may also call for availability of spare parts of a particular make. Therefore, the commercial wisdom of the Respondents to confine the field of choice to have AMC with only those who are among the dealers of Hikvision make equipments cannot be criticized, in any way, to make it susceptible to judicial interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
This writ petition, therefore, fails. The same is accordingly dismissed.