BOMBAY MOTOR STORES Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this application, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ for quashing the order dated 5th November, 1997 passed by the respondent No. 3, communicated through General Officer Commanding, Ranchi, whereby the petitioner has been informed that the dealings by the Army Command with the petitioner -Firm has been stopped pursuant to the order passed by the Headquarters by letter dated 21.10.1997. Petitioner's case, inter alia, is that the petitioner -firm was registered by Army Command for supply of motor parts and equipment to the various units under the Army Command since 1960 and petitioner shifted his business from civil supply to Army supply and the petitioner -firm thereafter has been dealing with the Army supply since 1960 and onwards and the petitioner happens to be a registered contractor of the Army since then. It is stated that in course of time, besides the petitioner other firms have also been registered as Army contractors and all the firms used to get various types of orders including the petitioner because of the fact that during the period of last 30 years the Army Command has now put a Division at Ranchi and has a number of units under it and accordingly, all the Army contractors are being provided with orders including the petitioner. It is stated by the petitioner that all of a sudden, from October, 1997 the respondents stopped placing orders on the petitioner -firm and on an inquiry it transpired to the petitioner that the Army Command has directed the various units, which used to take supply from the petitioner -firm, to stop placing orders of their supply on the petitioner -firm. The petitioner, thereafter, made several representations and also wrote a letter dated 31st October, 1997 to the respondent No. 2, General Officer Commanding, Infantry Division. In reply whereof the respondent No. 2, by impugned letter dated 5th November, 1997, informed the petitioner that dealing of the petitioner -firm has been stopped in consequence with an order from the Headquarters.

(2.) THE petitioner, therefore, made a grievance that its only source of livelihood is based on supplying motor parts and equipment to the Army and the Act of the respondents in black -listing the petitioner amounts to prevent the petitioner from privilege and advantage of entering into a lawful relationship with the Army Command and this was done without any prior information and without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is further contended that the impugned order passed by the respondents debarring the petitioner from dealing with the business and allowing other registered firm to continue their business with the respondents amounts to total discrimination and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) A counter -affidavit has been filed in this case by the respondents stating, inter alia, that the respondents have taken no arbitrary action to delist the petitioner and the impugned order does not cast a stigma on the petitioner's career. It is stated that the order would not deprive the petitioner of its source of livelihood as the said order relates only to the Army units within the jurisdiction of respondent No. 2. The petitioner is a businessman and the order of the respondents in no way debarring it from doing business with the public at large and other organisations including the Army units not within the jurisdiction of the respondent No. 2. The respondents contended that the petitioner cannot as a matter of right demand to do business with the Army authority, if it does not fulfil the criteria for doing the business. It is further stated in the counter -affidavit that any order delisting the supply is based on factual and definable parameter in the interest of natural justice and fair play. The performance of the petitioner was very poor and the petitioner was not able to stock a single supply order during the period of 9 months. I have heard Mr. Kameshwar Prasad, learned Sr. Counsel, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. A. K. Trivedi, learned SCCG. Mr. Kameshwar Prasad, learned Sr. Counsel assailed the impugned order only on the sole ground that before stopping and depriving the petitioner -firm in dealing with the business with the respondents at least an opportunity ought to have been given to the petitioner to submit his explanation on the reasons for which the respondents decided to delist the petitioner. Learned counsel put heavy reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of E.E. & C. Ltd. vs. State of West Bengal (AIR 1975 SC 266).