OM PARKASH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the orders of the first respondent (State of Himachal Pradesh) allotting quota of Ayurvedic Medicines to the other firms ignoring the claim of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, these orders, denying similar treatment to him, are arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The petitioner is a partner of Himachal Ayurvedic Pharmaceutical works. His unit is dealing in the manufacture of Ayurvedic medicines since 1952 and is registered as a Small Scale Industry by the Industries Department of Himachal Pradesh in the year 1971 vide registration No. SS-I-06-07/ 010694 / PMT / SSI. It is alleged in the petition that his unit is manufacturing more than 300 items and the work of manufacturing is being carried out with the help of modern machines. The Director of Health Services is alleged to have issued manufacturing licence to the petitioner's firm on 24/06/1970. The petitioner pleads that the drugs of his firm were approved by the Central Government Health Services Scheme and New Delhi Municipal Corporation, and since 1970 the drugs manufactured by the petitioner have been approved for reimbursement by the Himachal Pradesh Government for its employees and by Central Government as well since 1974. He also states that the petitioner's firm is 'A' category firm for purchases as per the policy of the Himachal Pradesh Government approved by the Cabinet (AnnexureP1). Out of the total number of 53 firms Manufacturing Ayurvedic Drugs in the State of Himachal Pradesh, only 5-6 are 'A' grade; nearly 10 to 15 'B' grade and rest 'C' and 'D' grades. As per the policy of the State Government (Annexure-P3) this price preference is to be given to the local manufacturers in purchasing the medicines. Petitioner's proposal for the purchase of ayurvedic medicines for the year 1992-93 was not considered by the respondents whereas the proposal of the other firms were considered thereby ignoring the claim of the petitioner.

(3.) Notice of motion of this petition was issued to the respondents on 27/05/1993. In CMP No. 1388 of 1993 reply was ordered to be filed within four weeks and the second respondent (Director, Ayurved, to the Government of Himachal Pradesh) was directed to consider the case of the petitioner through representation dated 7/05/1993 (Annexure-P4) and before taking any decision with respect to any supply intended to be made by the petitioner, he would be heard in person. The second respondent was ordered to intimate the date prayed for such hearing to the petitioner.