9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Eligibility restrictions in awarding contracts for dealership or distributorship of petroleum products by Government of India Undertakings. 2. Constitutionality of eligibility criteria based on relationships for dealership/distributorship. 3. Discrimination in eligibility criteria between physically handicapped candidates and others. 4. Interpretation of guidelines regarding partnerships for dealership/distributorship. 5. Right to practice profession or carry on business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. 6. Validity of guidelines in relation to economic and social justice principles of the Constitution. Analysis: 1. The judgment concerns appeals and petitions related to eligibility restrictions imposed by the Government of India Undertakings in awarding contracts for dealership or distributorship of petroleum products. The cases involve individuals and associations seeking relief from these restrictions based on various relationships with existing dealers. 2. The primary issue addressed is the constitutionality of the eligibility criteria based on relationships for dealership or distributorship. The guidelines set by the government include restrictions on awarding new contracts if close relatives of the applicant already hold a dealership of petroleum products. The petitioners argued that such restrictions violate their rights under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. 3. Another aspect considered is the alleged discrimination in eligibility criteria between physically handicapped candidates and others. The petitioners contended that the criteria unfairly differentiate between these categories of applicants, particularly concerning the inclusion of certain relatives as grounds for ineligibility. 4. The judgment also delves into the interpretation of guidelines regarding partnerships for dealership or distributorship. It is highlighted that partnerships must ensure that all partners individually meet the eligibility criteria, and if one partner or their relatives already hold a dealership, the partnership may be deemed ineligible to apply for a new contract. 5. The court examined the right to practice a profession or carry on a business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution in relation to the restrictions imposed on dealership contracts. The petitioners argued that they should not be made ineligible based on their relationships with existing dealers as it is their individual business. 6. Lastly, the validity of the guidelines was assessed in light of economic and social justice principles of the Constitution. The court emphasized that the government's policy of distributing dealership contracts aims to prevent concentration of wealth and ensure fair distribution of resources, aligning with the constitutional objectives of economic equality and common good. In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the eligibility restrictions imposed by the government, emphasizing the reasonable nexus between the guidelines and the constitutional principles of economic and social justice. The court dismissed the appeals and writ petitions, ruling that the guidelines were not arbitrary or unjust, and costs were imposed on the petitioners.
|
