SRAVAN KUMAR Vs. INDUSTRIES DEPT 59

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a Chartered Engineer and an industrial consultant by profession for over twenty years. He is an engineering graduate from Osmania University of the year 1968. He is a member of the Institute of Engineers, Indian Standards Institution, Indian Institute of Packaging and the Federation of Small Scale Industries etc. He is said to be having experience in several areas of the industry. His company is said to have Chartered Accountants, Civil, Chemical and Mechanical Engineers as well as Electronic and Computer Engineers, apart from Market Surveyors, foreign language translators, advertising experts and others, as associates.

(2.) The dispute in the present case relates to the right of the petitioner to represent his clients/entrepreneurs before the Government Semi-Government departments, (Central/State) and other public institutions, statutory as well as non-statutory. The petitioner's grievance is that the respondents 2 and 3, namely, the Director of Industries and the General Manager, District Industries Centre, did not allow, him during September. 1988 to represent his clients even though the petitioner was representing his clients in these departments and elsewhere for several years. The petitioner issued a lawyer's notice on 21-9-88 to the third respondent stating that he has a right to do the liason work on behalf of his clients and also appear before respondent No. 3. He issued another notice on 26-9-88 to the 2nd respondent. There was no reply. The petitioner has then filed this writ petition for issue of a writ of Mandamus for declaring that he is entitled to represent his clients before the respondents in any mutters pertaining to his clients before the respondents.

(3.) A counter has been filed by the 3rd respondent stating that his department 'does not have any objection' for the petitioner to do 'consultancy service like preparation of profiles, marketing survey' etc. It is stated that the respondents provide various facilities and support required by small and tiny industries under a single roof. All the assistance required by the enterpreneurs is made available under one single roof at the office of the District Industries Centre. The General manager is of the Cadre of a Joint Director and is responsible for the overall co-ordination and development of the industries. He is supported by Managers who have various functions. Ninteen of these functions are set out in great detail. It is further stated that to monitor the pending issues with various departments lor obtaining licences to establish industries, nodal agency meeting is constituted under the chairmanship of the Additional Commissioner of Industries wherein all the departments pertaining to industrial licencing are members and the committee meets every month and review the matters. The department welcomes intrepreneurs to seek personal attention and guidance in the matter of preparation of schemes, filling up various applications for getting S S.I Registration Certificates, P.P. approvals, raw-material, hire purchase machinery etc. it is then stated that. "this Department feels that there is no necessity for liason person. .. .. Involvement of liason person or agent in the matter of disposal of cases is discouraged to enable the entrepreneur to save expenditure due to liason .. .. .. the officers and the field staff appointed in District Industries Centre are technically qualified and trained to render all the help and guidance." After so stating, the counter affidavit goes on to say that 'in the name of consultancy, he (the petitioner) is approaching this department for simple permissions such as provisional registrations which are given on the same day i.e., across the table, permanent registrations within the stipulated period' and "Hence, the said consultant is not to be encouraged, since he is charging abnormal amounts in the pame of consultancy which will tarnish the image of the department for no service rendered by him. .. .. ... .. " They have also objected to the petitioner advertising himself as a Consultant in news papers. A reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner denying the above facts, though admitting that he does advertise his firm as providing industrial consultancy.