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, 97 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 -97.

(2.) 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, 97 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, 97 to the respondent No. 2, General Officer Commanding, Infantry Division. In reply whereof the respondent No. 2, by impugned letter dated 5th November, 97, informed the petitioner that dealing of the petitioner -firm has been stopped in consequence with an order from the Headquarters. 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 blacklisting 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.) I have heard Mr. Kameshwar Prasad, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Trivedi, learned SCCG.