CHANDANA INDUSTRIES Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing letter No.29/1702/0106/0106/UP, dated 10.1.2003 as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and also contrary to G.O. Ms. No.48, dated 20.2.1999 and for consequential reliefs.

(2.) The petitioners who are 14 in number are all Small Scale Industrial Units. The case of the petitioners is that the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O. Ms. No.48, dated 20.2.1999 directing all the local bodies and Government Undertakings to purchase 17 items listed there- under exclusively from the Registered Small Scale Industrial Units. It is one of the incentives extended by the Government in order to encourage the establishment of local Small Scale Industrial Units. In pursuance of G.O. Ms. No.48, the 1st respondent called for tenders for the purpose of finalisation of rates of the said 17 items mentioned thereunder. About 70 units, including the writ petitioners, participated in the said tender, and submitted their tenders for finalisation of the rate of the items. However, the petitioners are concerned only with item Nos. 1 and 5 of the list of items mentioned in G.O. Ms. No.48 and also they quoted the rates for the said two items. According to the petitioners the 1st respondent finalised the rates and fixed the rates of various items which are components of items 1 and 5 of the list mentioned in G.O.Ms.No.48 and also entered into contracts with various Small Scale Industries on different dates. The petitioners pleaded that in the said contracts the 1st respondent excluded copper chokes of 20 and 40 watts which is one of the sub- items of list of item No.5 on the ground that the petitioners have not given their willingness to supply the said items at the rate contract approved prices. The said item was excluded since the lowest tenderer, in respect of the said item failed to enter into contract with the 1st respondent. That apart, after entering into rate contract in the month of November, 2002 with various Small Scale Industries, the 1st respondent issued letter dated 10.1.2003 calling upon the petitioners for negotiations. However, since the rate quoted was at the rock bottom price for their products, the petitioners made it clear that it would not be possible for them to reduce the rate any further. Thereupon the 1st respondent issued the impugned proceedings dated 10.1.2003 deleting all the items from the rate contract for the year 2002-2003. The petitioners also contended that though they made several representations to extend the period of contract for one year from the date of execution of the agreement and also for inclusion of item 6(c) in the rate contract, the 1st respondent did not accede to their request. In the circumstances, the writ petition is filed assailing the action of the respondents.

(3.) The respondents filed a detailed counter-affidavit and contested the writ petition. In the counter it is stated that the rate contract committee constituted under G.O, Ms. No.48 in its meeting held on 3.1.2003 decided to review the rates quoted by the rate contract holders in respect of 17 reserved items for the period 2002-2003 by limiting the increase in the rates to 15% of the rates that were fixed for the earlier year. The variation in rates found in excess of 15% of the rates quoted by the tenderers during the year 2002-2003 are to be negotiated. Accordingly letters were addressed to the rate contract holders for executing the rate contract agreements for the reserved items for negotiation of the rates. In pursuance thereof 70 retail contract holders attended the meeting held on 10.1.2003, but they refused to negotiate any reduction in the rates. Hence the rate contract committee discussed the matter in detail in its meeting held on 10.1.2003 at 3.00 p.m. and since the rate contract holders did not agree for negotiations and also gave unwillingness letters, it is decided to delete the said items from the rate contract for the year 2002-2003. Accordingly a letter dated 10.1.2003 was addressed to all the indenting departments/agencies/ Corporations intimating the decision of the rate contract committee about the deferment of the said items from the rate contract for the year 2002-2003. It is also stated that inadvertently the expression 'deleted' was used in the said letter instead of'deferment'.