(7-^~'^^7 c^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w. P. (C)NO. ^6Q|_^2010 Petitioner .^^^ <^&y A^^y '^'..•^''•-A'?--"' ;.-\1N%.>'" ^y" ^'' .-• ^-•" ..o' Respondents / M/s Goa Antibiotics & Pharmaceuticals Limited [A company incorporated under Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office and factory Near Tuem Industrial Estate, Tuem, Pernem, Goa), Through - Its Distributor, Shri Rajeev Singh S/o Shri I.N.Singh, Aged about 34 years, A-27, Amrapali Society, Lalpur, Raipur-fC.G.) (State Enterprises of Government of Goa). -^ State of Chhattisgarh, Through - Secretary, Department of Commerce & Industry, (Mantralaya), D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur-(C.G.) Secretary, ' Department of Agriculture 85 Animal Husbandry, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur-(C.G.) Director, Directorate of Veterinary Services, Chhattisgarh Raipur, G.E.Road, Raipur-(C.G-) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 / 1VLQFJTHE Versus :1. 2. 3. CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (C) No. 4631 of2010 PETITIONER : M/s Goa Antibiotics Pharmaceuticals Limited. 86 RESPONDENT s Versus The State of Chhattisgarh and others. Writ PetitionJC) No. 4637 of 2010 PETITIONER : M/s HindustanAntibioticsLimited Versus RESPONDENT The State of Chhattisgarh and others. WIRTLPETITIONS UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CQKSTITUTION OF INDIA Division Bench: Hon'ble Shri I.M. Quddusi & Hon'ble Shri N.K. Agarwal, JJ. Present: Shri Virendra Sharma, counsel for fhe petitioners. Shri Vinay Harit, Deputy Advocate General with Shri Suryakant Mishra, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. O R D ER (oral) (Passed on 18th day ofAugust, 2010) Per I.M. Ouddusi, J. 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as leamed counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. Since Writ Petition (C) No. 4631/2010 8s Writ Pedtion (C) No.4637/2010 involve the saine facts and question oflaw, both the petitions are being disposed of by this con'imon order. 3. The facts, in nut shell, for disposal of these writ petitions, are that the petidoner in W.P.(C) No. 4631/2010 i.e. M/s Goa Antibiotics Phannaceuticals Liniited, is a Company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 and the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 4637/2010 i.e. Hindustan Antibiotics Limited is a Oovernment of India Enterprises. The Director, Veterinary Services, Chhattisgarh, Raipur by letter dated 1.4.2010 (Annexure P/5) invited current price lists of the items veterinary mediclnes (allopathic), vaccine, instrunaents, cryovessels etc. for the year 2010-11. Accordingly, the petitioners furnished their price lists. Subsequently the Deputy Director, Veterinary Services, Korba, Rajnandgaon, Raipur, Raigarh, Bilaspur etc. also asked the petitioners to furnish their recent price lists so that supply order may be issued. The grievance of the petitioners is that instead of issuing supply orders, all of a sudden by impugned circular dated 1.7.2010 (Annexure P/l) the Director, Veterinary Services, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, issued directions to various authorities to purchase veterinary inedicines (allopathic), vaccine, instruments, cryovessels ete. by inviting open tenders. 4. The submission of learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that exercising special powers conferred under Rule 16 of the Bhandar Kray Niyam, 2002 (revised 2004), the respondent No. 1 had passed the order dated 8.4.2010 (Annexure P/3), whereby the proviso to rule 4 of the Rule has been relaxed under fhe special circumstances to enable the respondents No. 2 8s 3 to purchase various veterinaiy medicines (allopathic), vaccine, instruments, cryovessels etc. directly froai the Public Sector Undertaking (P.S.U.) or National Dairy Development Board (NDDB) by direct communication through letters calling price list at the reduced rate from the manufacturers. Thus the impugned circular dated 1.7.2010, directing to purchase veterinarymedicines (allopathic), vaccine, Instruments, cryovessels ete. by open tender process, is not sustainable. If is alleged that the act of the respondent No.3 is unconstitutional, irrational, arbitrary with ulterior designs to oblige and benefit some partieular persons, depriving the petitioners from the above benefit whose price lists have been disclosed, thereby disabling the petitioners to even participate in on going tender process, which act of the respondents is violative of Articles 13 & 14 of the Constitution of India and i.n breach of the legitimate expectations of the petitioners Company. 5. Learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the respondents/State has raised preliminary objection in regard to the maintainability of the writ petitions, submitting that the instant dispute in both the writ petitions is between the Central Government entity, State of Goa and the State of Chhattisgarh, therefore, in view of existence of the High Power Committee, formed by Hon'ble the Apex Court, fhe instant dlspute should be decided by the High Power Conimittee and not by this Court. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is not in a position to controvert the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the dispute in question is between the Central Government entity, State of Chhattisgarh and the State of Goa. 7. In the above regard, Hontile the Apex Court has issued directions from time to time to constitute the High Power Committee with the observation that it was not contemplated by the framers of the Constitution or CPC that two departments of ^.'"feK'fe'l;^ a State or the Union of India and/or a department of the Governraent and a public sector undertaking fight a litigation in a Court of law. Such a course will be detrimental to the public interest as it entails avoidable wastage of public money and time. Various departments of the Government have its lirnbs and, therefore, they must act in coordination and not in confrontation. Filing of a writ petition by one department against the other by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of Higb Court is not only against the propriety and policy and sinacks of indiscipline but is also contrary to the basic concept of law which requires that for suing or being sued, there must be either a natural or a juristic person. The State/Union of India raust evolve a mechanisni to set at rest all interdepartmental controversies at the level qf the Governinent and such matters should not be carried to a Court of law for resolution of the controversy. 8. In the case of Oil & Natural Gas Corpn. Ltd. vs. Clty & Industrial Development Corporation, Maharashtra Ltd and Others, reported in (2007) 7 SCC 39, Hon'ble the Apex Court has directed to form the Coinmittee as nientioned in para 9 which is reproduced as under: "9. The matter is pending since 1990. Considering the nature of the controversy which is a recurring feature we direct that a committee be forraed to sort out the differences between the Central Govemment and the State Governinent entities. The composition f such coramittee shall be as follows: (1) The Cabinet Secretary of the Union; . (2) Chief Secretaiy of the State; ^ A« • ''<•••, ;', s: (3) Secretaries of the departments concerned of the Union and the States; and (4) ChiefExecutive Officers ofthe underfakings .concerned". [See 1995 Supp. (4) SCC 541, (2004) 6 SCC 437, (2003) 3 SCC 472, (2006) 4 SCC 780, (2004) 6 SCC 431, (2005) 7 SCC 576 and (2008) 9 SCC . 349]. 9. In view of the above, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter as it relates to the dispute between the Central Govemment entities and the State of Chhattisgarh. However, we dispose of both these writ petitions with a direction that the petitioners may approach the Coirimittee constituted by Hon'ble the Apex Court for redressal of their grievance. 10. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are .disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- I.M. Quddusi Judge Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge Kvr