C. K. ACHUTHAN versus THE STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS.,

Citation: [1959] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 787 · Decided: 11-12-1958 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUDHI RANJAN DAS · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

(l) S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
I 787 
C. K. ACHUTHAN 
v. 
THE STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS., 
(S. R. DAS, c. J., s. K. DAS, P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, 
K. N. W ANCHOO and M. HIDAY.A.TULLAR, JJ.) 
Fundamental Rights, Infringement of-Contract for supp~y of 
goods to Government-Whether a contract of employment-Can~clla­
tion of contract and grant to another-Whether discriminatory-Con-
stitution of India, Arts. z4, z6(z), z9(z)(g), JI. 
For the supply of milk to the Government Hospital at Can-
nanore for the year 1948-49, the petitioner and the third res~on­
dent, the Co-operative Milk Supplies Society, Cannanore, had 
submitted tenders, and the Superintendent who scrutinised 
them accepted that of the petitioner and communicated to1 the 
Director of Public Health the reasons for the decision. Subse-
quently, the contract to the petitioner was cancelled after giying 
the requisite notice in terms of cl. 20 of the tender, and he 'was 
informed that it was the policy of the Government that in the 
matter of supply to Government medical institutions in Cap.na-
nore District, the Co-operative Milk Supplies Union was to be 
given contracts on the basis of prices fixed by .the Revenue 
Department. The petitioner contended, in a petition filed uJllder 
Art. 32 of the Constitution, that there had been discrimination 
against him vis-a-vis the third respondent, that he was denied 
equal opportunity of employment under the State, and that the 
fundamental rights under Arts. 14, 16(1), 19(1) (g) and 31 had 
been infringed. 
Held, that none of the fundamental rights were involved in the 
present case. 
A contract which is held from Government stands on no 
different footing from a contract held from a private party and 
when one person is chosen rather than another the aggrieved 
paFty cannot claim the protection of Art. 14· 
' 
A contract for the supply of goods is not a contract of 
employment and the petitioner who was supplying milk to the 
State hospital was in no sense a servant and no question of 
employment qua servant arose. Article 16 (1) was therefore pot 
attracted 1;o the case. 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Petition No. 103 of 1958. 
Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution for enforce-
ment of fundamental rights. 
M. T. Paikeday and Ganpat Rai, for the petitioner. 
Sardar Bahadur, for respondent No. I. 
M. R. Krishna Pillai, for respondent No. 3. 
Dtcember II. 
Achuthan 
v. 
Slate of Kerala 
788 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959] Supp. 
1958. December 11. The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
HIDAYATULLAH, J.-This is a petition under Art. 32 
of the Constitution by one C. K. Achuthan, who claims 
to have held a contract for the supply of milk and 
Hidayatullah J .. other articles of diet for the year 1958-1959 but whose 
contract for supply of milk is said to .have been cancel.-
led by the District Medical Officer (second respondent 
herein). The contract for the supply of milk has now 
been given to the thi~d respondent, the Co-operative 
Milk Supplies Society, Cannanore. 
From the petition, it appears that the petitioner 
held contracts for the supply of milk to the Govern-
ment Hospital at Cannanore 
(Kerala State) ever 
since 1946, and that previous to this, his brother in 
the same business held similar contracts from 1936. 
In 1957, a "uniform procedure for fixing up con-
tracts " was adopted, and by a notification, conditions 
for acceptance of tender were laid down. The peti-
tioner as well as the third respondent submitted their 
respective tenders, which were to be opened by the 
Superintendent of the Hospital in the presence of 
interested parties. We need not refer to all the condi-
tions under which tenders were to be accepted, except 
those which have a bearing upon this matter. It was 
stated in the conditions that no tender. marked at 
" current market rates " would be accepted, and fur-
ther that in the supply of milk, preference would be 
given to approved Co-operative Milk Supply Unions and 
Societies, if their tender was within a margin of 5 per 
cent. over the market rate or the lowest tendered rate, 
whichever was less. All persons making tender for · 
the contract had to produce a certificate of solvency 
and tax clearance certificates, and to make a deposit 
with the tender. 
On January 20, 1958, the tenders which were sub-
mitted were scrutinised and the tender of the petitio-
ner for the supply of milk was accepted and that of 
the third respondent rejected. It appears that the 
Superintendent (res

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.