Color page for PDF.pmd - Orissa High Court

18
Court
News
GAYATRI KAR -V- BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, BBSR & ORS.
W.P.(C) NO.17037 OF 2010 (Dt. on 24.02.2011)
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 – ART.226.
Writ jurisdiction – Although the case involves question of fact which can not be adjudicated in a
writ petition but a writ Court can take cognizance of the entire facts and circumstances of the case
and pass appropriate orders to give the parties complete and substantial justice.
In the present case petitioner seeks correction of the name of her father in the Matriculation
Certificate issued by the Board of Secondary Education in 1993 – The case involves question of fact
and the petitioner has to approach the common law Forum by filing a suit – On the other hand for non
submission of corrected certificate the petitioner may lose her job – Held, if the petitioner will file the
suit and the number of the suit is provided to the employer of the petitioner her service shall not be
terminated on the ground that she has not submitted correct certificate till disposal of the suit and in
the event suit is decreed the Board shall correct the name of the father of the petitioner in her H.S.C.
Certificate and on production of the corrected certificate the same shall be accepted by her employer.
(M.M.Das, J.)
BIJAY KU. PANIGRAHI & ORS.-V-STATE OF ORISSA.
W.P.(C) NOS.9251 OF 2009 (With Batch) (Dt. on 25.02.2011)
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 – ART.13, 14, 16, 19 & 21.
Orissa Public Works Department Contractors Registration Rules, 1967 – Petitioners are registered
Contractors – Amendment of Rule 3 Dt. 13.02.2002 introducing that a contractor having licence for a
particular class can offer tender for his next below class in addition to his own class – Petitioners
challenged such amendment as violative of Art.14 on the ground that Contractors belonging to lower
class i.e. class A, B, C, & D will be greatly prejudiced and contractors of higher class would encroach
upon the works meant for them.
The un-amended Rule 3 allowed contractors to make offers meant for all categories below his
registered category but by virtue of the amendment in 2002 a higher category contractor was restricted
to only bidding for the next lower class alone and as such it restricted a higher class Contractor from
grabbing work of a lower class Contractor – Moreover the 2002 amendment protects the interests of
Contractors of lower categories and has been enacted to protect the big fishes from eating “small fish”
– Held, the amendment is intra vires of the Constitution of India and not violative of Articles 13(1), 13(2),
140, 16(2), 19(1) (g) and 21 of the Constitution of India which is upheld – The reference made by the
Division Bench is answered accordingly.
(V.Gopala Gowda, CJ, Pradip Mohanty, J & I.Mahanty, J.)
UTKAL PHARMACEUTICALS MANUFACTURERS ASSN. & ANR-V-STATE OF ORISSA & ORS.
W.P.(C) NO.18494 OF 2009 (Dt. on 03.03.2011)
Tender – Supply of drugs and medical consumables – Earlier it was awarded to the EPM rate
contract holders i.e. local SSI Units/MSMEs – Decision taken to abolish the practice of procurement
of drugs on EPM rate contract holders but to go for national bidding of 31 items of drugs and medical
consumables - No allegation against any of the Units of the petitioner association regarding supply of
drugs not of standard quality – Change in policy must be made fairly and should not be done arbitrarily
or by any ulterior criteria which is the basic requirement of Article 14 of the constitution – Held, Tender
call notice so far it relates to the 31 items of drugs and medical consumables is quashed and those
items to be excluded from the Tender Call notice for being procured from the local SSI Units/MSMEs
under the rate contract system.
(B.P.Das, J & B.N.Mahapatra, J.)