- (1.) ALTHOUGH this matter has been listed "For Orders" for fresh service of notice on respondent No. 3, having heard Mr. Ananda Sen, counsel appearing in support of the appeal, we are not inclined to keep the matter pending in view of the facts involved.
(2.) IT appears that tenders were invited with regard to installation of Solar Power lighting system in the Government Tribal residential schools and hostels by way of Pilot Project and the State of Jharkhand took a policy decision regarding inviting tenders only from Government of India Enterprises which had executed similar Government aided projects in remote areas. Aggrieved by the fact that the private agencies have been completely excluded from the tender, the petitioner filed a writ petition which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that a valid classification on an intelligible differentia distinguishing the Government Companies from private enterprises had been made out and, accordingly, there was no necessity of interfering with the decision. The learned Single Judge also had the occasion to record the fact that the petitioner, in an earlier project, had not conducted the same satisfactorily. The penalty imposed had, of course, lapsed. Challenging the said decision of the learned Single Judge, the writ petitioner filed the instant appeal and the counsel appearing in support thereof reiterated the stand taken by him by the learned Single Judge and referred to the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India and others, (1979) 3 Supreme Court Cases 489, wherein the question of distribution of largesse by the Government was considered. Although the said decision may have some application to this case, in the facts of the instant case, we are not inclined to interfere with the findings of the learned Single Judge mainly on account of the fact that about two years have lapsed since tenders have been invited and having further regard to the fact that a policy decision of the State Government was involved.
(3.) HOWEVER , in future, in matters of this nature, the State Government should do well to keep in mind the principles decided in the above mentioned case, while inviting tenders. There will be no order as to costs.;