B.K. INDUSTRIES Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
LAWS(UTN)-2012-8-46
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on August 29,2012

B.K. Industries Appellant
VERSUS
State of Uttarakhand and others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) 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.
(2.) 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.
(3.) 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.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.