RANJIT KUMAR GHOSH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Among the countless things that the Election Commission needs for the proper conduct of elections in this the largest democracy of the world, indelible ink is one. It is used for putting a mark on the index finger of the voter at the time of casting vote in order to ensure that no voter should exercise-his franchise more than once. The Commission seems to know exactly what it needs and where to get it from." As the time comes for holding an election, it buys indelible ink in required quantity and in suitable packages from a particular source.

(2.) The petitioner is the proprietor of a unit called, Bihar Ink Company which is engaged in manufacture of indelible ink for the past 40 years. The petitioner views the purchase of indelible ink by the Commission purely as a commercial transaction and resents his being kept out of this particular piece of business. The petitioner seeks to challenge the restrictive clause in the tender notice issued by the State Election Commission, Bihar, that required the tenderer to have the know-how transferred from/licensed by the National Research Development Corporation, New Delhi for the manufacture of indelible ink.'

(3.) Seeking substantially the same reliefs, the petitioner had earlier come to this Court on two occasions. He first filed CWJC No. 1825 of 2001, challenging the decision of the State Election Commission, Bihar, to purchase indelible ink from M/s. Mysore Paints and Varnish Limited without inviting any tenders. A single Judge dismissed that writ petition, observing that the decision of the Election Commission could not be called unreasonable and it did not justify interference by the Court because the supply order was given to a Government concern. Against the order passed by the learned Judge, the petitioner preferred appeal being LPA No. 197 of 2001. The appeal was dismissed by order, dated 10.4.2001 on the ground that the election was to start from the following day and hence, the issuance of any writ would be futile. The appellate Court, however, made the observation that :-