JUDGMENT :

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J :

1. The petitioner no.1 is a Company and petitioner no.2 is an Executive Director of the said Company. The present writ petition challenges Clause 27.2 of the CPWD Works Manual, 2014 (for short, “the 2014 Manual”), as reincorporated in the CPWD Works Manual, 2019 and lastly amended by Office Memorandums dated December 27, 2019 and January 8, 2020, as well as connected Office Memorandums.

2. The grievance of the petitioners is that in violation of the different Notifications of the Union of India, Ministry of Steel, the respondent Central Public Works Department (CPWD) has introduced Clause 27.2 in the CPWD Works Manual, 2014 and reincorporated the same in the 2019 Works Manual.

3. It is submitted that as per the Notification dated April 24, 2015 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Steel, bearing 4(8)/2010-SD-I, it was mentioned that steel producers of any capacity, irrespective of process route, starting their operation from iron making using iron ore, virgin or processed, with necessary refining facilities and rolling/processing facilities, at a single location or else in multiple locations provided that the entire gamut of iron and steel production, from iron making to finished steel production, is owned by the same company or its subsidiary company(ies), shall be classified as Primary Steel Producers. Primary Producers having a minimum capacity of one million tons per annum (1 MTPA) in terms of crude steel were classified as Integrated Steel Producers, steel producers of any capacity stipulated therein as Secondary Steel Producers as well as other categories as Other Steel Producers.

4. In Clause 2 of the Notification, it was stipulated that the above categorization/revised classification of steel producers should in no way be seen as a certification of the quality of steel produced. Quality certification would be as per the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) or any other designated authorities as per the BIS Act.

5. Clause 3 provided that there will be no certification of the steel producers by the Ministry of Steel or Joint Plant Committee (JPC). The JPC will, however, maintain a list of different categories of producers on the website to the extent possible, after exercising necessary due diligence.

6. The same stipulations were reiterated in a communication dated December 14, 2016 on the subject of classification of steel plants. Apart from reiterating the Notification of May 12, 2016 and an Order issued on August 9, 2016 regarding classification of steel plants, it was stated that the list would be purely for statistical purpose and would have no bearing on the quality of steel produced.

7. In the third paragraph of the said Communication, the Ministry of Steel further stated that complaints/grievances are being received from various organizations of steel industry that despite clear orders not to classify steel producers as Main/Major/others by the Ministry, user departments like CPWD/Railways, etc., are not changing their procurement policies and continuing to offer a step-motherly treatment to the products of smaller manufacturers. This is despite the fact that products of smaller producers are as BIS standards and are competitively priced. It was indicated that such steps would ensure a level playing field to all producers/industry associations of steel industry.

8. Again, on February 7, 2017, vide DO No.4(13)/2016, SD (I), the Ministry of Steel stressed that the route of steel making, that is, whether primary or secondary, ordinarily has no bearing on the quality of steel. The PSUs and other organizations/bodies under the administrative control of the Addressee-Ministry were requested to sensitize and to ensure that suitable changes were made in the Internal Procurement Guidelines.

9. It is relevant to mention that during the entire period, the petitioners had been giving representations to all concerned regarding alleged violation of the Notification and Orders of the Minist