Bhargav Bhushan Press Vs. Bihar State Text Book Publication Corporation and Others
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 8387 of 1997(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 27922 of 1995)
Petitioner: Bhargav Bhushan Press
Respondent: Bihar State Text Book Publication Corporation and Others
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 8387 of 1997(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 27922 of 1995)
Judges: G.T. NANAVATI & B.N. KIRPAL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Nov 25, 1997
Head Note:
CONSTITUTION
Articles – 14, 16, 226 with Bihar Purchase Preference Rules, 1975 – Applicability – Publication Corporation, supplying paper for printing text books – Book printed and returned – Only printing 8charges paid – No sale or purchase. Held that Purchase Rules have no application to printing services.
Articles – 14, 16, 226 with Bihar Purchase Preference Rules, 1975 – Applicability – Publication Corporation, supplying paper for printing text books – Book printed and returned – Only printing 8charges paid – No sale or purchase. Held that Purchase Rules have no application to printing services.
Held:
The Corporation supplies paper to the printing presses when the work of printing is given to them. They print on the paper supplied to them and return the textbooks to the Corporation. They are paid only the printing charges. It, therefore, cannot be said that the Corporation is purchasing textbooks from the printing presses to whom the printing work is given. There is neither an element of sale nor an element of purchase in the transaction between the parties.
In that view of the matter, it will have to be held that the aforesaid Rules do not apply to services of this type. ( Para 7)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. This appeal arises out of the judgment and order passed by the Patna High Court in CWJC No. 1325 of 1995. The appellant had filed the writ petition in the Patna High Court because it was refused the work of printing textbooks in view of Bihar Purchase Preference Rules, 1975 and the decision of the Industrial Devel-opment Commissioner-cum-Chairman of the Bihar State Appellate Committee.
4. The contention raised by the learned counsel is that the said Rules can have no application to the facts of this case and, therefore, the decision of Respondent 1-Corporation not to give printing order to the printing presses situated outside the State of Bihar is erroneous and arbitrary. Though the said decision of the Corporation has been challenged on various other grounds, we need not refer to them as we are inclined to accept the conten-tion regarding applicability of those rules.
5. The State Government by a resolution date 22-10-1975, framed rules known as Bihar Purchase Preference Rules, 1975. By the said Rules, the Government provided for giving certain conces-sions on the purchases made by the departments/ corporations/ Councils authorities/ autonomous bodies from the industries situ-ated in Bihar. It provides that while purchasing goods and materials 5% concession should be given to the goods produced by large and middle industries situated in Bihar. It further provides that in respect of goods manufactured by small-scale industries situated within the State of Bihar, a concession of 15% may be given to them. The said Rules further provide that if any tenderer has any complaint against the decision of any pur-chase committee of any department/corporation, it can file his objections before the Appellate Committee which is empowered to decide such questions.
6. Both the counsel have taken us through the said Rules. On careful examination of the same, we find that they relate to purchases of goods by the Corporations and departments and corpo-rations of the Government. They do not provide for services like printing. They are confined to purchases of goods only.
7. So far as this case is concerned, the undisputed facts are that the Corporation supplies paper to the printing presses when the work of printing is given to them. They print on the paper supplied to them and return the textbooks to the Corporation. They are paid only the printing charges. It, therefore, cannot be said that the Corporation is purchasing textbooks from the printing presses to whom the printing work is given. There is neither an element of sale nor an element of purchase in the transaction between the parties. We again emphasise that it is not in dispute that the Corporation is supplying paper to the printing presses and the printing presses are paid only the printing charges. In that view of the matter, it will have to be held that the aforesaid Rules do not apply to services of this type.
8. Since the decision taken by the Corporation is based upon a misconception regarding applicability of the Rules, it has to be regarded as erroneous and arbitrary.
9. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the instructions of the Government and also the decision of the Corporation not to give printing orders to the printing presses situated outside the State of Bihar based upon the said Rules.
10 In the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs.
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. This appeal arises out of the judgment and order passed by the Patna High Court in CWJC No. 1325 of 1995. The appellant had filed the writ petition in the Patna High Court because it was refused the work of printing textbooks in view of Bihar Purchase Preference Rules, 1975 and the decision of the Industrial Devel-opment Commissioner-cum-Chairman of the Bihar State Appellate Committee.
4. The contention raised by the learned counsel is that the said Rules can have no application to the facts of this case and, therefore, the decision of Respondent 1-Corporation not to give printing order to the printing presses situated outside the State of Bihar is erroneous and arbitrary. Though the said decision of the Corporation has been challenged on various other grounds, we need not refer to them as we are inclined to accept the conten-tion regarding applicability of those rules.
5. The State Government by a resolution date 22-10-1975, framed rules known as Bihar Purchase Preference Rules, 1975. By the said Rules, the Government provided for giving certain conces-sions on the purchases made by the departments/ corporations/ Councils authorities/ autonomous bodies from the industries situ-ated in Bihar. It provides that while purchasing goods and materials 5% concession should be given to the goods produced by large and middle industries situated in Bihar. It further provides that in respect of goods manufactured by small-scale industries situated within the State of Bihar, a concession of 15% may be given to them. The said Rules further provide that if any tenderer has any complaint against the decision of any pur-chase committee of any department/corporation, it can file his objections before the Appellate Committee which is empowered to decide such questions.
6. Both the counsel have taken us through the said Rules. On careful examination of the same, we find that they relate to purchases of goods by the Corporations and departments and corpo-rations of the Government. They do not provide for services like printing. They are confined to purchases of goods only.
7. So far as this case is concerned, the undisputed facts are that the Corporation supplies paper to the printing presses when the work of printing is given to them. They print on the paper supplied to them and return the textbooks to the Corporation. They are paid only the printing charges. It, therefore, cannot be said that the Corporation is purchasing textbooks from the printing presses to whom the printing work is given. There is neither an element of sale nor an element of purchase in the transaction between the parties. We again emphasise that it is not in dispute that the Corporation is supplying paper to the printing presses and the printing presses are paid only the printing charges. In that view of the matter, it will have to be held that the aforesaid Rules do not apply to services of this type.
8. Since the decision taken by the Corporation is based upon a misconception regarding applicability of the Rules, it has to be regarded as erroneous and arbitrary.
9. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the instructions of the Government and also the decision of the Corporation not to give printing orders to the printing presses situated outside the State of Bihar based upon the said Rules.
10 In the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs.
