SHRIKANT DHONDIRAM KATAKE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Heard forthwith.

(2.) The Petitioner belongs to a backward community and is carrying on business as a transport contractor and owns and possesses a tanker. The Petitioner at times also hires a number of trucks as per the requirement of other dealers and /or hirers for the purpose of carrying on his business as transport contractor and is in this field for the last about 5-7 years. It is the case of the Petitioner that various oil companies, who are Respondents 2, 3 and 4 which are Government of india undertakings, had in 2002, invited tenders for bulk LPG transport contract, of which the closing date was 11th June, 2002. There was a reservation provided upto 15% for SC and 7. 5% for STs and exemption from having a ready made tanker at the time the bid was made. Taking that into consideration, candidates belonging to SC had bid for the contract.

(3.) Taking into consideration the present state of affairs and entrepreneurhsip, candidates belonging to SC category thought if fit to enter into the said area of starting business of transport contract, pursuant to the notice inviting tenders which appeared some time in june 2005 issued by the three Corporations which are Respondents herein. It is pointed out that unlike in the previous tender of 2002, the notice provided that a tenderer must own a truck or LPG tanker truck for transportation of bulk LPG by road. There are some other conditions which are also adverted to therein. It is set out that such a condition for owning a truck was never imposed in the past taking into consideration the financial ability of the candidates belonging to the SC categories. By imposing such a condition, the Corporation had sought not only to deprive the candidates belonging to SC who are willing to enter into the business of transportation, but also had sought to discriminate between the various persons and had sought to equate persons belonging to general category and the persons belonging to sc/st categories. Reference is then made to Article 38 of the constitution of India. It is submitted that by imposing such a condition at the threshold the Three Corporations are clearly acting contrary to article 38 which was introduced to see that the State tries to promote the welfare of SC/st categories. It is also pointed out that whereas the tender notice dated 11th June, 2002 provided that the Corporation would follow the policy as laid down by the Ministry of Petroleum, it was clearly erroneous to deviate from the said policy when the corporation had no right whatsoever to change the said policy and by doing so the Respondents have acted contrary to the provisions of articles 38 and 46 of the Constitution of India and apart from that by imposing the condition as set out earlier acted arbitrarily and thus violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is also pointed out that the notice inviting tenders is clearly violative of Article 19 (1) (g) and is not a restriction as envisaged by Article 19 (6) of the Constitution. It is on this basis that the Petitioner approached this Court for the various reliefs as set out therein.