Jharkhand High Court
Manish Kumar vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 18 June, 2003
Equivalent citations: [2004(2)JCR372(JHR)]
Bench: P.K. Balasubramanyan, R.K. Merathia
JUDGMENT
1. Heard the petitioner in person, standing counsel for the Union of India and Mr. C.S. Vadiayanathan, Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 6.
2. The petitioner has filed this Public Interest Litigation praying for the issue of the writ of mandamus directing the Union of India, the State of Jharkhand and their respective Secretaries, Information and Technology, to encourage utilisation of Open Source Software in the ongoing computerisation of records by various departments of the Union Government as well as the State Governments and to promote the use of Open Source Software by investing resources, financial as well as man power, instead of Proprietary Software, and also for a direction to the respondents to establish Research Centers, Training Centers and to use the existing infrastructure for development of Open Source Software, instead of Proprietary Software and for other appropriate reliefs. The petitioner has also impleaded two companies as respondents.
3. According to the petitioner, the Open Source Software are available for use either free or on very competitive prices and that the use of Open Source Software will considerably reduce the expenditure involved in computerisation and also enable the country to develop an Indigenous Computer System.
4. It is pointed out by the standing counsel for the Union of India that the petitioner is not at all aware of the various developments in the field of computerisation and about the steps taken in that behalf by the Union of India and that no foundation has been laid for approaching this Court for the issue of a writ of mandamus. Senior counsel appearing for respondent No. 6 pointed out that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. He also submits that the problem is totally technical in nature, which cannot be decided on the pleading now put forward. Details of expenditure involved are also not available. The pleadings would not enable the Court to take a decision on such a technical matter as has been raised.
5. According to the petitioner, if the Government would take a decision to adopt Open Source Software, then, the same will reduce the financial burden and will be very economical and within the reach of every citizen of India.
6. Obviously, this is a subject technical in nature and it has also to be noticed that the financial and other details are not available in the writ petition. No doubt it has been asserted that huge amounts are now being spent for the use of Proprietary Software, since the price of Proprietary Software is very high. In the circumstances, we think that it is essentially for the concerned authorities of the Government to look into this claim of the petitioner in its proper perspective and In the light of all available materials. This Court, by entertaining this writ petition, cannot constitute Itself the expert, in a subject of such technical nature and constitute itself the primary authority to consider all the aspects involved.
7. We, therefore, think that the proper course to adopt will be for this Court to leave the petitioner to move respondent No. 2 in the first instance with his suggestions, so that the said suggestions could be examined in all its aspects by respondent No. 2. After all, the plea of the petitioner is that the cost will be reduced by half if the Open Source Software is encouraged. If correct, obviously this will be a matter of public benefit. Of course, what if any, would be the disadvantageous would also be a relevant aspect to consider. In this view of the matter, we decline to further entertain this writ petition at this stage.
8. We give liberty to the petitioner to move respondent No. 2 with a proper representation supported by all relevant materials. We direct respondent No. 2 to consider that representation and take a decision thereon and communicate the same to the petitioner. If the petitioner seeks an opportunity of being heard in support of this representation or suggestion, respondent No. 2 will give him that opportunity. The representation, if made, will be considered and disposed of in any event within four months of receipt of the representation.
9. With the above observations and direction, the writ petition is disposed of.