Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition Seeking Equal Catering Rates for Scheduled Caste Contractors Under Government Resolutions. Discriminatory Pricing Between Caterers and Food Manufacturers Violates Article 14 of the Constitution.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: AURANGABAD In Favour of Accused
  • 4
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioners, six catering service providers (Annapurna Caterers, Saraswati Caterers, Sai Bhojanalaya, Gajanan Bhojanalaya, Om Sai Bhojanalaya, and Santosh Pandurang Rasal) through their proprietors, all belonging to the Scheduled Caste category, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad. They challenged the discriminatory practice of the State of Maharashtra in fixing different rates for catering services compared to food manufacturing and supply services under Government Resolutions dated 10.09.2018 and 21.10.2021. The petitioners had been providing catering services to government hostels and institutions under the Social Welfare Department. Despite repeated representations from 2016 onwards, the respondents failed to grant them the same rates as those given to Bahujan food manufacturers and suppliers. The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant benefits under the said GRs, to decide their representations, and to declare the differential rates as violative of Article 14. The court, after hearing arguments from Senior Advocate V.D. Sapkal for the petitioners and AGP S.G. Karlekar for the State, held that the classification between caterers and food manufacturers/suppliers was arbitrary and without any intelligible differentia. The court noted that both categories perform similar work of providing food, and the State failed to justify the differential treatment. Consequently, the court allowed the petition, directing the respondents to extend the same rates to the petitioners as are applicable to food manufacturers and suppliers, and to decide the pending representations within a stipulated time. The judgment was pronounced on 25th October 2023 by a division bench comprising Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Justice Y.G. Khobragade.

Headnote

A) Constitutional Law - Right to Equality - Article 14 of the Constitution of India - Discrimination in Government Contracts - The petitioners, catering service providers belonging to Scheduled Caste, challenged the differential rates fixed by the State for catering services versus food manufacturing/supply services under GRs dated 10.09.2018 and 21.10.2021. The court held that the classification between caterers and food manufacturers/suppliers is not based on any intelligible differentia and is arbitrary, violating Article 14. The court directed the State to extend the same rates to caterers as are applicable to food manufacturers/suppliers. (Paras 1-15)

B) Administrative Law - Government Resolutions - Interpretation - GRs dated 10.09.2018 and 21.10.2021 - The court examined the GRs and found that the rates for catering services were lower than those for food manufacturing/supply, despite both involving similar work of providing food. The court held that the State failed to provide any rational basis for the distinction, and thus the discrimination was unconstitutional. (Paras 5-12)

C) Service Law - Contractors - Equal Pay for Equal Work - The principle of equal pay for equal work was applied to government contractors. The court observed that catering contractors perform similar functions as food manufacturers/suppliers and are entitled to equal rates. The court directed the respondents to grant the benefits of the GRs to the petitioners at par with food manufacturers/suppliers. (Paras 13-15)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the differential rates prescribed for catering services as compared to food manufacturing/supply services under Government Resolutions dated 10.09.2018 and 21.10.2021 are discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court allowed the writ petition, directing the respondents to grant the benefits of GRs dated 10.09.2018 and 21.10.2021 to the petitioners at par with food manufacturers and suppliers, and to decide the pending representations within a stipulated time.

Law Points

  • Right to equality under Article 14
  • Discrimination in government contracts
  • Reasonable classification
  • Government Resolutions dated 10.09.2018 and 21.10.2021
  • Scheduled Caste contractors
  • Catering services
  • Food manufacturers and suppliers
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2023 LawText (BOM) (10) 12

Writ Petition No. 8334 of 2023

2023-10-25

RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, Y.G. KHOBRAGADE

2023:BHC-AUG:23006-DB

V.D. Sapkal, S.R. Sapkal, S.G. Karlekar

Annapurna Caterers, Saraswati Caterers, Sai Bhojanalaya, Gajanan Bhojanalaya, Om Sai Bhojanalaya, Santosh Pandurang Rasal

The State of Maharashtra, The Commissioner Social Welfare Department Maharashtra State Pune, The Regional Deputy Commissioner Social Welfare Department Aurangabad, The Divisional Social Welfare Officer Region Aurangabad, The Assistant Commissioner Social Welfare Department Aurangabad

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging discriminatory rates for catering services.

Remedy Sought

Writ of mandamus directing respondents to grant benefits under GRs dated 10.09.2018 and 21.10.2021, to decide representations, and to declare differential rates as violative of Article 14.

Filing Reason

The State fixed lower rates for catering services compared to food manufacturing/supply services, which the petitioners alleged was discriminatory and violated their right to equality.

Issues

Whether the differential rates for catering services under GRs dated 10.09.2018 and 21.10.2021 are discriminatory and violative of Article 14? Whether the petitioners are entitled to the same rates as food manufacturers and suppliers?

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued that the classification between caterers and food manufacturers/suppliers is arbitrary and without any intelligible differentia, violating Article 14. Respondent-State argued that the rates are fixed based on different categories of work and there is a reasonable classification.

Ratio Decidendi

The classification between catering services and food manufacturing/supply services under the Government Resolutions is not based on any intelligible differentia and is arbitrary, thus violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The petitioners, being similarly situated, are entitled to equal rates.

Judgment Excerpts

The Petitioners have put-forth prayer clause-B, C, D and E as under: To declare the discriminatory practice of charging varying rates for catering services as violative of the petitioners fundamental right to equality under Article 14 of Constitution of India.

Procedural History

The petitioners filed representations from 2016 onwards, which were not decided. They then filed the present writ petition in 2023. The court reserved judgment on 3rd October 2023 and pronounced on 25th October 2023.

Acts & Sections

  • Constitution of India: Article 14
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Teacher's Petition for Full Pay During Suspension Period After Acquittal in Criminal Case. Suspension period to be treated as duty for all purposes including pay and allowances, not merely as qualifying service for pension.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Second Appeal in Partition Suit, Sets Aside Appellate Decree for Non-Compliance with Order 41 Rule 31 CPC. Failure to Frame Points for Determination and Provide Independent Reasoning Renders Appellate Judgment Unsustainable.