1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6187 OF 2010 Sunil s/o Ramchandra Choudhari ... PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & ors. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri S.S. Thombre, Advocate for the petitioner Shri N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 and 2 Shri Amol Sawant, Advocate for respondent No.3. ..... CORAM: P.V. HARDAS & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATED: 29th July, 2010 PER COURT ): 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the resolution dated 2.3.2009, by which the respondent No.3 had taken a decision to set up/ open medical stores in the premises of the Government Medical College & Hospital at Bombay, Nagpur and Yavatmal. The shops are to be run and managed by respondent No.3 Federation, to whom the petitioner describes as a N.G.O. 2. The petition challenges the aforesaid Government Resolution on the ground that the said Government Resolution has been issued in breach of the provisions relating to the issuance of the 2 Government Resolution and by virtue of the Government Resolution, unhealthy competition is being fostered. The third ground is that, no tenders were invited before asking the respondent No.3 Federation to run and open the shops. 3. Mr. Thombre, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged before us in support of the aforesaid three grounds for challenging the Government Resolution. Mr. Khandare, the learned Government Pleader has pointed out that the Division Bench at Nagpur, in Writ Petition No.3427/2000, by order dated 9.3.2001, directed the submission of the report, which is known as Dr. Bhagwati Committee Report. Pursuant thereto, the aforesaid Government resolution has been passed. It is further stated that, the respondent No.3 is not a NGO but is a consumer federation, of which 75% share capital is controlled by the Government. Even the Government has nominated its officers on the Board of Directors of this Federation. The learned Government Pleader, therefore, urges that the respondent No.3 is in fact a Government body. It is further stated that, in such circumstances, it was not necessary to call for the tender process as the Federation would be selling medicine at a cheaper rate than the market rate. 4. Though in the petition it is averred that the aforesaid Government resolution has been issued in breach of the procedure 3 relating to the issuance of the Government Resolution, no grounds have been specified as to how the said resolution is ultra vires the provisions. It was faintly urged before us that since the petitioner is a shop owner, who runs a medical shop and no hearing was given to the petitioner before the Government proposed to take such action, the Government Resolution is vitiated. According to us, the aforesaid submission is without any merit. Neither law nor the rules contemplate granting of hearing before issuance of Government Resolution under Article 162 of the Constitution of India. In respect of the unhealthy competition, according to us, that is also without any merit. Merely because the respondent No.3 has agreed to sell medicines at a lesser rate than the market rate is no ground for presuming that the competition is unhealthy. Nothing prevents the petitioner and like other from the petitioner from matching the reliefs which are being given by the respondent No.3. In that light of the fact that it is a Government body and has been directed to run and maintain the said shops in the hospital by virtue of the Government Resolution, no tender process as such was necessary. On all three grounds, therefore, the petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. (N.D. DESHPANDE, J.) (P.V. HARDAS, J.) fmp/wp6187.10