Kandasamy vs. The Principal Secretary TO Government

Held

The Court held that the writ petition, seeking the constitution of a State Level Committee to regulate prices of mining quarry materials and metals, could not be entertained as a public interest litigation. The Court reasoned that the petitioner, being a contractor who had entered into business contracts, was primarily concerned with the impact of price increases on existing contracts. Such a concern was deemed to be a matter of private business contracts rather than a public interest issue. For future contracts, the Court noted that the hike in quarry materials would be considered while fixing the cost of civil works. Regarding existing contracts, the Court advised individual contractors affected by price increases to submit petitions to the government for contract modification. The government was suggested to consider and address the grievances of individual contractors by taking into account the hike in quarry material costs. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, but liberty was granted for individual contractors to approach the government for existing contracts.

Facts

The petitioner, a contractor, filed a writ petition seeking a Mandamus to direct the respondents (various government departments and officials related to Geology and Mines) to constitute a State Level Committee to regulate prices of essential ingredients like mining quarry materials and metals used for government projects. The petitioner contended that the M.Sand Mining Association arbitrarily increased the cost of M.Sand from Rs. 2000/- (including GST) to Rs. 5000/- (excluding GST), and other related materials saw increases of 250% to 300%. This arbitrary price hike, especially for existing contracts where contractors have a profit margin limit of 30%, caused significant suffering. The petitioner sought to prevent price abuse by lobbyists and arbitrary increases without adequate advance notice to bidders.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition, seeking the constitution of a State Level Committee to regulate prices of mining quarry materials and metals, falls within the purview of public interest litigation, considering the petitioner is a contractor affected by price hikes in existing business contracts? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the arbitrary and significant increase in the cost of essential materials like M.Sand and other quarry materials, impacting government projects and contractors, warrants intervention. The petitioner highlighted that such increases, especially for existing contracts, create undue hardship given the profit margin limitations for contractors. The petitioner sought to prevent price manipulation and ensure fair bidding processes for government projects. Respondents' arguments: The respondents did not explicitly record arguments in the judgment. However, the Court's reasoning suggests that the matter was viewed as a private contractual dispute rather than a public interest issue.