TMI Blog2003 (2) TMI 525X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... warding contract to respondent No. 5 and further to direct the respondents Nos. 1 and 3 to award the contract to the petitioner-company forthwith in terms of petitioner-Companys bid for the supply, installation, testing and commissioning of 0.2S Accuracy Class Static Electronic Trivector Energy Meters. ( 2. ) Counsel for the Power Corporation and respondent No. 5 have raised preliminary question regarding the maintainability of the writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution by a foreign company not having any office in India and as such the learned counsel for the parties have addressed the Court on the maintainability of the writ petition. ( 3. ) Sri Umesh Chandra, Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner has contended that for the violation of Art. 14 of the Constitution, it is not necessary that a person should be a citizen of the country but the protection is also available to a non-citizen. The rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution though are not absolute in terms but those rights would be available subject to such restrictions as may be imposed. In the instant case, since the equal treatment in the like circumstances has not been provided to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 and not under Art. 19 of the Constitution. Any case, even a locus classicus, is an authority for what it decides. It is permissible to extend the ratio of a decision to cases involving identical situations, factual and legal but care must be taken to see that this is not done mechanically, that is, without a close examination of the rationale of the decision which is cited as a precedent. Human mind, trained even in the strict discipline of law, is not averse to taking the easy course of relying on decisions which have become famous and applying their ratio is supposedly identical situation. In Ram Krishna Dalmia, the Court was dealing with a challenge to S. 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 and notification issued by the Central Government under that section appointing a Commission of Inquiry to inquire into and report on the affairs of certain companies. ( 7. ) In paragraphs 16 and 17 the Honble Supreme Court further observed as under : The principle, which underlies Art. 14 is that equals must be treated equally, that is to say, that Law must operate equally on all persons under like circumstances Seervais Constitutional Law of India, Third Edition, p. 296. Articl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riminated while awarding contract has also placed reliance on paragraph 10 of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State Trading Corporation of India v. Commercial Tax Officer. AIR 1963 SC 1811. Paragraph 10 reads as under : Before dealing with the argument at the Bar, it is convenient to set out the relevant provisions of the Constitution. Part III of the Constitution deals with fundamental rights. Some fundamental rights are available to any person, whereas other fundamental rights can be available only to all citizens. Equality before the law or equal protection of the laws within the territory of India is available to any person (Art. 14). The protection against the enforcement of ex-post facto laws or against double jeo-pardy or against compulsion of self-incrimination is available to all persons (Art. 20). So is the protection of life and personal liberty under Art. 21 and protection against arrest and detention in certain cases under Art. 22. Similarly freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion is guaranteed to all persons. Under Art. 27, no person shall be compelled to pay any taxes for the promotion and maintenance of any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taken by the respondent-Corporation is perfectly justified and valid. ( 11. ) In Indo-China Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. v. Jasjeet Singh the Honble Supreme Court observed as under (para 34) : There is one more point which must be mentioned before we part with this appeal. Mr. Choudhary attempted to argue that if mens rea was not regarded as an essential element of S. 52-A, the said section would be ultra vires Arts. 14, 19 and 31(1) and as such, unconstitutional and invalid. We do not propose to consider the merits of this argument, because the appellant is not only a company, but also a foreign company, and as such, is not entitled to claim the benefits of Art. 19. It is only citizens of India who have been guaranteed the right to freedom enshrined in the said Article. If that is so, the plea under Art. 31(1) as well as under Art. 14 cannot be sustained for the simple reason that in supporting the said two pleas, inevitably and appellant has to fall back upon the fundamental right guaranteed by Art. 19(1)(f). The whole argument is that the appellant is deprived of its property by operation of the relevant provisions of the Act and these provisions are invalid. All that Art. 31(1) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te of Arunachal Pradesh v. Khudiram Chakma, 1994 (Supp) 1 SCC 615 : (AIR 1994 SC 1461). ( 13. ) In Louis De Raedt v. Union of India, the Honble Supreme Court while examining the claim of Indian citizenship by a foreigner and whether Art. 19(1)(c) is available to a foreigner also held as under : The next point taken on behalf of the petitioners, that the foreigners also enjoy some fundamental rights under the Constitution of this country, is also of not much help to them. The fundamental right of the foreigner is confined to Art. 21 for the life and liberty and does not include the right to reside and settle in this country, as mentioned in Art. 19(1)(e), which is applicable only to the citizens of this country. It was held by the Constitution Bench in Hans Muller of Nurenburg v. Superintendent, Presidency Jail, Calcutta (AIR 1955 SC 367) that the power of the Government in India is to expel foreigners is absolute and unlimited and there is no provision in the Constitution fettering this discretion. ( 14. ) In State of Arunachal Pradesh v. Khudiram Chakma, the Supreme Court while examining the provisions of the Citizenship Act, 1955 in respect to the appellant and other 56 f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
