ESSEX FARMS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Circular dated 2.8.1991 issued by respondent No.2 spelling out the policy of respondent No. 1 restrcting registration of suppliers for the supply of "Meat Tinned" only to public sector undertakings (for short 'PSUs') and State Level Federations (for short 'Federations') owning manufacturing units is under challenge in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. At the time of filing of this writ petition, the petitioner had also sought relief restraining respondents 1 & 2 from accepting the tender of respondent No.3 and seeking directions to consider the petitioner's tender dated 23.9.1991 for supply of 800 metric tonnes Meat Canned Curried for the consumption of Indian Defence Forces. These prayers have now become infructuous due to the contract being awarded in favour of respondent No.3 and period of supply having come to an end. Petitioners now seek prayer (a) and (c) namely to quash the circular dated 2.8.1991 and to direct respondents 1 & 2 to accept the registration of the petitioner for enlistment as an approved contractor for the supply of 'Meat Tinned'.

(2.) Petitioner is a private limited company registered under the Companies Act. It commenced the business of meat processing in the year 1943 and claims to be the premier manufactuer/supplier within and outside India of meat and poultry products. It is alleged that it has-all the requisite equipments and facilities for undertaking bulk supplies. From 1959 till about 1985 petitioners had been supplying regularly 'tinned mutton' and 'tinned pork' to the Indian Defence Forces and it is respondent No. 1 who procures food items for defence forces through respondent No.2. Respondent No. 1 is the over-all policy making authority for the purchases to be made for the forces. Because of its high standard and quality and ability to deliver large quantities of meat, respondent No.2 repeatedly placed orders on petitioners for supply of 'meat tinned curried'.

(3.) From 1988 to 1990, according to the petitioners, no tender notices for purchase of 'meat tinned curried' were issued or advertised by the respondents. Orders, however, were placed for this meat item by respondent No.2 by direct negotiations with PSUs or Federations.