SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(AP) 86

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : G.CHANDRAIAH
Informatics (P) Ltd., Hyderabad - Appellant
Versus
State OF A.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 01-28-06

Headnote:

Constitution of India – Civil Liberties – Unqualified – Iris Technology – Quashing decisions – Petitioner Company has approached Court through its Chief executive who has also filed affidavit in support of writ petition contends that he was a doctor and has specialization in M. R. C. S. Vascular Surgery from Royal College of Surgeons, Edinborough, United Kingdom. He had worked as Surgeon in one of medical institutes petitioner-Company was a Limited Company, having its registered office – According to petitioner-Company is sole and authorized representative of Indian technologies Church street Moorsetown, New Jersey, USA – Indian Technologies developed for commercial utilization software technology for Iris Recognition – Iris Recognition is considered to be most accurate Biometric identifier. The holder of US and International patents behind Iris Recognition Technologies, Indian offers unparalleled security for public-use applications such as simplified passenger travel, border control, National ids, restricted access and information access solutions – Held, Court does not sit as a Court of appeal but merely reviews manner in which the decision was made – Court does not have expertise to correct administrative of administrative decision is permitted it will be substituting its own decision without necessary expertise which itself may be fallible terms of invitation to tender cannot be open to judicial scrutiny because invitation to tender is in realm of contract – Normally speaking decision to accept tender or award the contract is reached by process of negotiations through several tiers. More often than not, such decisions are made qualitatively by experts – Government must have freedom of contract – In other words, a fair play in joints is a necessary concomitant for an administrative body functioning in an administrative sphere or quasi- administrative sphere decision must not only be tested by application of Wednesbury principle of reasonableness but must be free from arbitrariness not affected by bias or actuated by mala fides – Quashing decisions may impose heavy administrative burden on the administration and lead to increased and unbudgeted expenditure – Writ petition is dismissed.

BILAL NAZKI, J, J.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-Company seeking a relief that the 4th respondent s bid for procurement of State-wide Iris licenses, was incomplete and respondent nos. l to 3 should not consider his bid, as respondent No. 4 was unqualified.

( 2 ) THE petitioner-Company has approached this Court through its Chief executive Officer Dr. Srinivasa Rao, who has also filed affidavit in support of the writ petition. He contends that he was a doctor and has specialization in M. R. C. S. Vascular Surgery from Royal College of Surgeons, Edinborough, United Kingdom. He had worked as Surgeon in one of the medical institutes. The petitioner-Company was a Limited Company, having its registered office in Hyderabad. According to the petitioner, the petitioner-Company is sole and authorized representative of Iridian technologies, Inc. (Iridian) 1245 N Church street, Moorsetown, New Jersey, USA (hereinafter referred to as iridian technologies ). Iridian Technologies developed for commercial utilization software technology for Iris Recognition. Iris Recognition is considered to be the most accurate Biometric identifier. The holder of US and International patents behind Iris Recognition Technologies, iridian offers unparalleled security for public-use applications such as simplified passenger travel, border control, National ids, restricted access and information access solutions. A detailed development of "iris recognition" has been mentioned in the petition and it is stated that Professor dr. John Daugman, University of Cambridge, united Kingdom was the pioneer of the technology. In 1994, Dr. John Daugman was awarded the patent for the Iris recognition Algorithms. This is the Parent intellectual Property for all the products viz. , kno Who Authentication Server, Knowho oem SDK (Software Development Kit), pc Iris and Engine Access Control System of Iriscan. Dr. John Daugman, through an assignment deed dated 9. 9. 1993, conferred right, title and interest in and to the Biometric personal Identification System based on Iris analysis on Iriscan Inc. , upon the Delaware corporation. This Iris Authentication software Technologies developed by Iris scan in due course are as follows : kno Who Authentication Server, kno Who OEM SDK (Software Development kit), private ID in the year 2000, Iriscan merged with its licensee Sensar, Inc. Upon merger, the company came to be known as Iridian technologies Inc. As a result, Iridian technologies is the exclusive possessor and intellectual property patent holder of Iris licenses and Iris Equipment in the United states of America and International Patents. It is submitted that as on today, the Iridian technologies possess exclusive patent rights as regards the patents which are subject-matter of the writ petition and no one else can sell or use the technology/software and use licence except under a valid licence or contract from Iridian technologies. Through a business agreement dated 5. 2. 2004, writ petitioner was granted the status of an authorized agency to develop, represent and commercialise iridian Technologies Software in India. According to the petitioner, it has been the consistent stand of Iridian Technologies that the petitioner is the only Company in India to represent Iridian Technologies for its products, software and user licences etc. There had been a contract between Iridian technologies and LG Electronics, USA, for operation, distribution etc. The said business arrangement between Iridian technologies and LG Electronics, USA, had been validly cancelled on 23. 8. 2004 by iridian Technologies. The suit by LG electronics against the termination of contract, is subject-matter of a Suit in the District court, New Jersy in United States of america. No order has been passed against iridian Technologies, by the Court at United states. In view of the termination of the contract by Iridian Technologies, LG electronics, USA, is barred from conducting business in

























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top