2003 (2) TMI 525 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 by a foreign company with no office in India.
2. Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
3. Entitlement of a foreign company to fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Writ Petition:
The petitioner, a foreign company without an office in India, filed a writ petition under Article 226 challenging the decision of U.P. Power Corporation Limited to award a contract to a domestic company. The respondents raised a preliminary question regarding the maintainability of the writ petition by a foreign company. The petitioner's counsel argued that the protection under Article 14 is available to non-citizens and that the petitioner has the right to maintain the writ petition.

2. Violation of Article 14:
The petitioner contended that the decision to award the contract to the second lowest bidder, a domestic company, was arbitrary, unreasonable, and mala fide, thus violating Article 14 of the Constitution. The petitioner cited several Supreme Court decisions to support the argument that Article 14 guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws to any person, irrespective of citizenship.

3. Entitlement to Fundamental Rights:
The respondents argued that the petitioner, being a foreign company, is not entitled to claim the protection of Article 19, which is available only to citizens of India. They cited the Supreme Court's decision in Indo China Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. v. Jasjit Singh, which held that certain fundamental rights, including those under Article 19, are confined to citizens of India. The respondents further argued that the decision to award the contract to a domestic company was justified and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract, which allowed for preference to goods manufactured in the purchaser's country.

Judgment:
The court held that while foreigners enjoy some fundamental rights under the Constitution, these are confined to Article 21 (right to life and liberty) and do not include the rights guaranteed under Article 19, which are available only to citizens. The court opined that the petitioner could not claim violation of Article 14 independently but must read it in conjunction with Article 19(1)(g), which is confined to citizens. The court concluded that the writ petition for the enforcement of protection under Article 19(1)(g) in the garb of Article 14 is not maintainable.

Conclusion:
The writ petition was dismissed, and the court clarified that it did not delve into the merits of the case. The decision emphasized that fundamental rights available to citizens cannot be extended to non-citizens through Article 14. The petition was dismissed with costs easy.