Gujarat High Court
Anjaneya Corporation vs State Of Gujarat on 28 November, 2022
Author: Ashutosh J. Shastri
Bench: Aravind Kumar, Ashutosh J. Shastri
C/SCA/6272/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6272 of 2022
==========================================================
ANJANEYA CORPORATION
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
AADITYA D BHATT(8580) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR KM ANTANI AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
MR LAXMANSINH M ZALA(5787) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE
ARAVIND KUMAR
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI
Date : 28/11/2022
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI)
1. By way of this petition under Article 226/ 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:-
(A) Your lordships may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction quashing and setting the Bid Document No. GEM/2022/B/1955944, dated. 18.02.2022 and subsequent corrigendum dated. 25.02.2022 for the supply for Preshcool Education For Anganwadi Children in Gujarat, in as far as the criteria pertaining to Past Performance, Requirement of having to submit Samples prior to/at the time of submitting a bid, 50% Bid Quantity, arbitrary definition of last 3 financial Years etc., as being totally unjust illegal and arbitrary and tailor made to suit specific participants in the bidding process, in the interest of justice.
(B) Your lordships be pleased to quash and side the work order granted in the favor of Respondent no. 3, and be further pleased to direct respondent no. 2 to float the bid for supply for Preshcool Education For Anganwadi Children in Gujarat, afresh with reasonable participation criteria, allowing fair participation of all eligible bidders interest of justice.Page 1 of 23 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 00:25:18 IST 2022
C/SCA/6272/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2022 (C) Pending hearing admission and final disposal of this petition, your lordships be pleased to pass an order staying execution, implementation and operation and taking of any further steps towards implementation of Bid Document NO.
GEM/2022/B/1955944 dated. 18.02.2022 and subsequent corrigendum dated. 25.02.2022 for the supply for Preshcool Education For Anganwadi Children in Gujarat in the interest of justice.
(D) Your lordships be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order, or direction, directing the respondents to frame the Guidelines to be followed while conducting tendering/e-tendering process maintaining integrity, impartiality, transparency and upholding fair competition and the best financial interests of the state exchequer, as well as the participants in the interest of justice.
(E) Your lordships be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to get an Audit, through the respective wing of the CAG to be done, so that any loopholes in the system may be detected, and integrity, impartiality, transparency, fair competition and the best financial interests of the state exchequer, as well as the participants, are maintained in the interest of justice. (F) Your Lordships may kindly be pleased to pass such other or further order or relief that may be deemed just fit and proper in the interest of justice.
2. The case of the petitioner is that petitioner is a proprietorship firm and is one of the leading manufactures and suppliers of preschool kits. Commissioner of Woman and Child Development, Gujarat State authority published a tender document No.GEM/2022/B/955944 providing preschool education kit for Anganwadi children in Gujarat (Q-3) through its e-market place GeM. Public procurements which are made Page 2 of 23 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 00:25:18 IST 2022 C/SCA/6272/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2022 through GeM have to follow general terms and conditions of portal and it clearly stipulates that resulting contract shall be governed by General Terms and Conditions (GTC) unless petitioner supersedes by some special terms. According to the petitioner, original bid document lays down buyers specifications documents wherein no criteria is laid down in the said document, craft out a highly customized set of requirements which cannot be available immediately through manufacture or procurement with immediate effect.
3. Petitioner is not convenient with the terms and conditions which are stipulated in the tender document consisting of additional buyer added specific terms and conditions as well as disclaimer clause which is a part of the tender document. By indicating that samples are called in advance which is not the criteria laid down by GeM and as such, is not just and proper on the part of the authority to insist.
4. It has been stated in the petition that when bid is opened on 18.2.2022, it was not possible for the petitioner to customize the sample and get it lab tested and supply it to the buyers, i.e. Page 3 of 23 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 00:25:18 IST 2022 C/SCA/6272/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2022 respondent No.2 before bid end date 4.3.2022. Apart from that, very department always keeps criteria of past performance to be 10% in all other bids submitted through GeM. However, in an arbitrary manner, when it came to the procurement of preschool education kit for Anganwadi children, criteria was raised to 50% and subsequently, raised to 80% and thereby eliminated chances of any other bidder to participate in the bid process. It has also been agitated that not only said part from keeping financial part of 50% of past performance (subsequently altered to 80%) bid document also specifies, which specification also is arbitrary and as such, it seems that not only in terms of money, but also in terms of total units of 1935500, a bidder should have supplied 50% of bid quantity. So, by detailing out few such conditions, a grievance is raised that terms and conditions stipulated in the tender document are onerous and arbitrary. Apparently, it has been averred in the petition that years of past performance required is set to 3 years, however definition of last 3 years which has been defined in such manner that selectively financial year of 2020-21 will have to be excluded by referring to few conditions mentioned in the petition memo, a Page 4 of 23 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 00:25:18 IST 2022 C/SCA/6272/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2022 basic grievance is that terms and conditions of this tender document are ex-facie arbitrary, onerous and not sustainable on the touchstone of principles laid down by catena of decisions.
5. Decisions have also been mentioned in the body of petition and based upon such averments, initially the Court was pleased to issue notice on 30.3.3022 and later on, after completion of pleadings, petition has come up for consideration and the Court upon request of all learned advocates appearing for both the sides has taken up the matter for decision.
6. Learned advocate Mr. Aditya Bhatt appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently contended that the terms and conditions stipulated are absolutely arbitrary, not on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and as such, the reliefs prayed for deserve to be granted. It has been submitted that the conditions are tailor-made conditions and by virtue of said conditions, criteria is prescribed in such a manner that several bidders, like petitioner, would be oust from the zone of consideration and may not be able to participate on account of such conditions. It has been submitted that on Page 5 of 23 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 00:25:18 IST 2022 C/SCA/6272/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2022 account of Covid situation, such kind of conditions also ought not to have been imposed upon and further, supply of sample was not at all demanded on previous occasion, but it has been later on added and the same is not permissible for the authority.
7. A further grievance is also raised by learned advocate by referring to page No.83, Item No.(2), and has submitted that such kind of measurements which are prescribed and provided are solely with an idea to oust some of eligible bidders, like petitioner, and as such, when such conditions are stipulated, authority has acted in an arbitrary manner. Even the conditions, as stated herein-above, are framed in such a manner that petitioner will have a difficult time to cope up with tender process and as such, a specific representation has also been made on 22.2.2022, but so far has not been even responded by authority and by inviting an attention to page 104 of the petition compilation, few suggestions which were made by petitioner said to have not been considered, Mr. Bhatt has submitted that left with no other choice, petitioner has to question such kind of onerous and arbitrary condition.
Page 6 of 23 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 00:25:18 IST 2022
C/SCA/6272/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2022
8. Learned advocate Mr. Aditya Bhatt has submitted that under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Court is having a very wide jurisdiction whereby, by undertaking an exercise of judicial review, the terms and conditions not only can be set at naught but can be read down also and as such, by referring to few decisions, Mr. Bhat has submitted that the reliefs prayed for deserve to be granted in the interest of justice
9. Learned advocate Mr. Aditya Bhatt to substantiate his stand has relied upon following decisions:-
(1) (1999) 1 SDCC 492;
(2) (2003) 5 SCC 437
(3) (2004) 11 SCC 485
(4) (2009) 6 SCC 171
(5) (2014)3 SCC 760
(6) 2003 (2) GLR 956
And by referring to this, Mr. Bhatt has reiterated his submission with regard to tailor-made conditions and action against fair competition and also loss to public exchequer and by taking this plea has requested to grant the reliefs as prayed for in the petition. No other submissions have been made. Page 7 of 23 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 00:25:18 IST 2022 C/SCA/6272/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2022
10. As against this, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. K.M. Antani appearing on behalf of the authorities, i.e. respondent Nos.1 and 2, has vehemently opposed the petition mainly on the ground that petitioner has not projected its case properly, on the contrary petitioner is not in a position to meet with the tender conditions and wants to create a hurdle in the smooth bid process which is to be undertaken. It has been submitted that looking to the significance of work related to tender, any obstruction on the part of petitioner would hamper the public interest and as such, no interference may be made in the interest of justice.
11. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has then contended that terms and conditions which are stipulated in the tender documents are after thorough process & study and requirement of tender work and as such, what would be the appropriate terms and conditions is a well thought process of tender inviting authority and as such at the instance of petitioner, same may not be disturbed. It has been further submitted that it is a settled position of law that this fixation and prescription of tender conditions is the domain of tender Page 8 of 23 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 00:25:18 IST 2022 C/SCA/6272/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2022 inviting authority and as such, unless it is apparently de hors the principles arbitrariness then only judicial review be undertaken and petitioner has not made out any case which can indicate any arbitrariness, unreasonableness or any discriminatory treatment.
12. On the contrary, according to learned Assistant Government Pleader, past performance clause is a standard clause of all GeM bids and buyer authority can choose % age (percentage) of past performance ranging from 10 to 80% and value of past performance depends upon requirement of each tender and as such, it is not open for the petitioner to generalize and standardize the said issue by taking plea over percentage which has been fixed. On the contrary, a categorical averment has been made in the reply affidavit filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 that clause with regard to past performance was already indicated in the bid document. From beginning itself, neither it has been modified nor it has been added by later point of time and as such, it is ill-founded on the part of petitioner to contend that conditions have been later on changed, which is far from truth. On the contrary, according to learned Assistant Page 9 of 23 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 00:25:18 IST 2022 C/SCA/6272/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2022 Government Pleader, petitioner has no locus standi to question such terms and conditions and to make an effort to intercept the process. The cause which is tried to be ventilated by petitioner is based upon incorrect and inaccurate facts. On the contrary, petitioner has submitted that a mere provisional registration certificate for GST dated 26.6.2017 as proof of his credentials and further, representation which is said to have been made is almost after a period of 15 days from floating of tender and mere a day before last date of submission of bid. This attempt only speaks volume about it.
13. It has been submitted that though there is a specific requirement to submit before tender process, at a much belated stage, an attempt is made by petitioner to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction. At this stage, according to learned Assistant Government Pleader, respondent No.3 has already come forward, in the process, has already deposited the money, incurred huge expenditure and at that stage, in a very convenient mode, petitioner has invoked extraordinary jurisdiction. On the contrary, there is no justification made in the petition of any nature by virtue of which, terms and Page 10 of 23 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 00:25:18 IST 2022 C/SCA/6272/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2022 conditions can be said to be arbitrary. When the aforesaid are the terms and conditions, how the petitioner is in a position to meet with, is remotely nowhere mentioned in the petition. However, be that as it may. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has submitted that the question of tender's terms and conditions may not be entertained at the instance of petitioner which has not tendered at all and as such, no relief can be granted in the interest of justice, more particularly when advance stage is already crossed of this tender process.
14. Learned advocate Mr. Laxmansinh Zala appearing on behalf of private respondent No.3 has vehemently opposed the petition on the ground that petition is based upon false and wrong statements on oath and with an ulterior motive to intercept, an attempt is made to thwart the process of tender. By indicating on oath that petitioner is a leading manufacturer and supplier of preschool kits, but when it comes to certification of registration, it is merely a provisional registration for GST and that too of June 2017 and as such, an attempt is made to mislead the Court. It has further been contended that representation has also been made on 3.3.2022, Page 11 of 23 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 00:25:18 IST 2022 C/SCA/6272/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2022 which is almost a period of 15 days from floating of the tender and just a day before submission of the bids and it has not been disclosed before the Court that whether representations are made by others or not, details thereof are from which source of information but then, there is no details provided. It is merely a pigment of imagination and as such, a serious attempt is made to mislead the Hon'ble Court.
15. Learned advocate Mr. Zala for respondent No.3 has further contended that challenge has been made at a much belated stage of tender document which is of 18.2.2022 and respondent No.3 pursuant to the work order having been awarded has incurred a huge cost and by now, more than Rs.10 crores are already dumped in the project. Had there been any attempt by petitioner who genuinely questioned the tender terms, proper details might have been projected before the Court. However, on the contrary, on the basis of inadequate material, attempt is made. Terms and conditions of past experience were made applicable to all prospective bidders without any relaxation or reservation and there is no iota of evidence to favour a particular person, such terms have been Page 12 of 23 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 00:25:18 IST 2022 C/SCA/6272/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2022 later on modified. On the contrary, it is prerogative of an authority, i.e. respondent Nos.1 and 2, to fix terms and conditions as per the requirement and public interest of tender work and therefore, this is not a fit case in which any interference be made at the instance of petitioner.
16. Learned advocate Mr. Zala has further submitted that later on, issue of exercise of judicial review is set down by catena of decisions delivered by Hon'ble Apex Court and even this Bench has also in number of decisions has taken a view that unless and until terms apparently violate any reasonableness or arbitrariness, only in that limited sphere in a given case, same can be examined. But, according to Mr. Zala, petitioner has not made out any case of such nature by virtue of which such interference deserves and as such, petition being devoid of merits, deserves to be dismissed with costs.
17. For the purpose of substantiating his stand, learned advocate Mr. Zala has relied upon few decisions delivered by Hon'ble Apex Court, i.e. :
(1) 2020 SCC OnLine (Calcutta) 2213 Page 13 of 23 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 00:25:18 IST 2022 C/SCA/6272/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2022 (2) 2019 (11) Scale 592, (3) 2018 SCC 243 (in case of National Highway
Authority of India Vs. Gwalior- Jhansi Expressway Limited), (4) SLP (Civil) No.1616 of 2022 in case of Balaji Ventures Private Ltd. Vs. Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd, and others and (5) Decision delivered by this Court in Special Civil Application No.5338 of 2016 in the matter of Aahna Air Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat And by referring to all these decisions, a contention is raised that the petition being merit less, be dismissed with costs.
18. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the material on record, it appears that an attempt is made by petitioner to question the terms and conditions of a tender document mainly on the ground that it is tailor-made condition and same being arbitrary, such terms and conditions are not sustainable in the eye of law. But then, to examine such issue raised by petitioner, we have gone through the terms and conditions which are stipulated in the tender document with regard to minimum Average Annual Turnover of Bidder requirement, a past performance as well as minimum Page 14 of 23 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 00:25:18 IST 2022 C/SCA/6272/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2022 Average Financial Turnover of bidder during last 3 years. A conjoint reading of such terms and conditions apparently not so arbitrary, especially when the others are in a position to meet with and further, on the basis of the very terms and conditions, respondent No.3 herein has already been issued a work order and as such, simply because petitioner is not in a position to meet with such tender conditions, no inference can be drawn that said conditions are arbitrary or to be treated as tailor-made conditions. What are the conditions and requirements of tender document are specifically within the domain of tender inviting authority, i.e. respondent Nos.1 and 2, and in absence of any apparent arbitrariness or malafide intent, it is not open for the Court to undertake exercise of judicial review and this sound proposition would clearly indicate that challenge made by petitioner does not deserve to be entertained.
19. To examine the issue raised by petitioner in addition to visualizing the terms and condition, a stand has been taken by respondent Nos.1 and 2 in their affidavit. It is also made clear that past performance clause is a standard clause of all GeM bids and buyer authority can choose percentage of past Page 15 of 23 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 00:25:18 IST 2022 C/SCA/6272/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2022 performance ranging from 10% to 80% and exact value of past performance is depending upon the requirement of each bid and therefore, when that be so, it is not open to generalize or standardize percentage since it is exclusively depending upon requirement of each bid and what would be the requirement is subject to discretion of tender inviting authority depending upon situation and as such, cannot substitute its opinion qua that of tender inviting authority and as such we see no reason to entertain the petition filed by the petitioner.
20. Further, we have also perused the specific averment made in the affidavit-in-reply that clause related to past performance was incorporated in the bid document from very beginning and same has not been modified nor added at a later point of time and as such, when that be so, it is not open for the petitioner to raise any grievance. Further, with regard to the grievance which has been raised that on page 83, authority has prescribed specification of kit and what kind of standard requirement of such kit is also again the domain of the authority and therefore, simply because certain measures are prescribed by the authority with regard to beads and string as reflecting on page Page 16 of 23 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 00:25:18 IST 2022 C/SCA/6272/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2022 83, it is not for the petitioner or the Court to suggest as to what kind of size/ standardize required by tender inviting authority. On the contrary, it has been clearly mentioned that shape shall be provided in red, green, yellow and blue colours and should comply with BIS standards IS-9873 and based upon that size of each, shape has been stipulated and same is also with respect to other items of the tender work and as such, after full-ledge process, if tender inviting authority has prescribed such kind of measures, in our opinion, it is not for the Court to prescribe or suggest any size which may be required. It is authority's discretion to prescribe such. Hence, we are of the clear opinion that no case is made out by petitioner to assail any of the terms which are tried to be agitated before us.
21. At this stage, we may constrained to take note of attempt made by petitioner to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction. It is clearly mentioned in the affidavit filed by private respondent No.3, which has not been countered by petitioner that petitioner is said to have been a leading manufacturer and supplier of preschool kits but to suggest that neither any past experience, nor any proof about it being the largest manufacture as Page 17 of 23 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 00:25:18 IST 2022 C/SCA/6272/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2022 mentioned. A close perusal would clearly indicate that what has been supplied before authority is a merely provisional registration for GST and that too dated 26.6.2017 and further, the Court cannot lose its sight about it while invoking extraordinary jurisdiction. The tender document is of 18.2.2022, whereas representation which has been made is on 3.3.2022 and that too after 15 days period from floating of tender and a last day before submission of bid and as such, this attempt made by petitioner at a belated stage also is not possible to be ignored by the Court. Further, it is also specifically averred in paragraph 5.1 on page 141 in the affidavit-in-reply that work order has been awarded to respondent No.3 and respondent No.3 is more than halfway through said process and has already incurred a cost of more than Rs.10 crores and therefore, filing of this petition at belated stage and questioning the work order or terms and conditions is nothing but an afterthought process, which we are not in a position to encourage in absence of any material or in absence of any case being made out and therefore, from overall all circumstances, we are of the opinion that no case is made out by petitioner to call for any Page 18 of 23 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 00:25:18 IST 2022 C/SCA/6272/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2022 interference.
22. At this stage, the decisions which have been relied upon by the petitioner are no-doubt salutary principles in nature but much water has flown under bridge. On such principles, the decisions which are last in line are clearly suggesting that judicial review can be undertaken rarely and only when there appears to be clear irrationality, arbitrariness or malafide intent. Here, no such circumstances are made out by petitioner, which may even permit us to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction. Law has been spelt out by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case reported in 2019 (11) Scale 592, wherein the Court being guardian of fundamental rights is in position to undertake an exercise of jurisdiction when there is an arbitrariness, irrationality, malafide or bias, otherwise such exercise should be with lot of restraints and normally, Court should be loath in interfering with contractual issues and on the contrary, when public work is being undertaken, Court should leave prescription of terms and conditions in the domain of the tender inviting authority and as such, when such is a scope well propounded by series of decisions, last in last is the decision Page 19 of 23 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 00:25:18 IST 2022 C/SCA/6272/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2022 dated 21.3.2022 in the case of M/s. N.G. Projects Limited Vs. M/s. Vinod Kumar Jain and others in Civil Appeal No.1846 of 2022, we are of the opinion that the decisions which have been pressed into service by learned counsel are not possible to be applied as a straitjacket formula in peculiar background of present facts and as such, we are of the opinion that no case is made out by petitioner.
23. Since we have considered the decision delivered by Hon'ble Apex Court of recent time, we hereunder quote such proposition hereunder:
(1) In case of Yashwant Sinha and others Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2020)2 SCC 338;
(2) In the case of Silppi Constructions Contractors Vs. Union of India and Another reported in (2020) 16 SCC 489, Hon'ble Apex Court has held and observed in para 19 as under:-
19. This Court being the guardian of fundamental rights is duty bound to interfere when there is arbitrariness, irrationality, mala fides and bias. However, this Court in all the aforesaid decisions has cautioned time and again that courts should exercise a lot of 12 2019 (6) SCALE 70 restraint while exercising their powers of judicial review in contractual or commercial matters. This Court is normally loathe to interfere Page 20 of 23 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 00:25:18 IST 2022 C/SCA/6272/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2022 in contractual matters unless a clear−cut case of arbitrariness or mala fides or bias or irrationality is made out. One must remember that today many public sector undertakings compete with the private industry. The contracts entered into between private parties are not subject to scrutiny under writ jurisdiction. No doubt, the bodies which are State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution are bound to act fairly and are amenable to the writ jurisdiction of superior courts but this discretionary power must be exercised with a great deal of restraint and caution. The Courts must realise their limitations and the havoc which needless interference in commercial matters can cause. In contracts involving technical issues the courts should be even more reluctant because most of us in judges robes do not have the necessary expertise to adjudicate upon technical issues beyond our domain. As laid down in the judgments cited above the courts should not use a magnifying glass while scanning the tenders and make every small mistake appear like a big blunder. In fact, the courts must give fair play in the joints to the government and public sector undertakings in matters of contract. Courts must also not interfere where such interference will cause unnecessary loss to the public exchequer.
(3) In the judgment and order rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court on 21.3.2022 in Civil Appeal No.1846 of 2022 decided on 21.3.2022, it has been held and observed in paragraph 23 and 26 as under:-
23. In view of the above judgments of this Court, the Writ Court should refrain itself from imposing its decision over the decision of the employer as to whether or not to accept the bid of a tenderer. The Court does not have the expertise to examine the terms and conditions of the presentday economic activities of the State and this limitation should be kept in view. Courts should be even more reluctant in interfering with contracts involving technical issues as there is a requirement of the necessary expertise to adjudicate upon such issues. The approach of the Court should be not to find fault with magnifying glass in its hands, rather the Court should Page 21 of 23 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 00:25:18 IST 2022 C/SCA/6272/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2022 examine as to whether the decision-making process is after complying with the procedure contemplated by the tender conditions. If the Court finds that there is total arbitrariness or that the tender has been granted in a malafide manner, still the Court should refrain from interfering in the grant of tender but instead relegate the parties to seek damages for the wrongful exclusion rather than to injunct the execution of the contract. The injunction or interference in the tender leads to additional costs on the State and is also against public interest. Therefore, the State and its citizens suffer twice, firstly by paying escalation costs and secondly, by being deprived of the infrastructure for which the present-day Governments are expected to work.
26. A word of caution ought to be mentioned herein that any contract of public service should not be interfered with lightly and in any case, there should not be any interim order derailing the entire process of the services meant for larger public good. The grant of interim injunction by the learned Single Bench of the High Court has helped no-one except a contractor who lost a contract bid and has only caused loss to the State with no corresponding gain to anyone.
24. From the aforesaid proposition of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in addition to the issues raised, we have also satisfied ourselves on the decision making process by an authority and we find no error. Accordingly, it is not possible for this Court to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction looking to present background of facts.
25. Hence, in view of the overall situation, which is prevailing on record, and background of facts, we are of the opinion that no case is made out by petitioner to call for any interference.Page 22 of 23 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 00:25:18 IST 2022
C/SCA/6272/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2022 Accordingly, petition being merit-less stands DISMISSED with no order as to costs. Notice is discharged.
Sd/-
(ARAVIND KUMAR,CJ) Sd/-
(ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI, J) OMKAR Page 23 of 23 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 00:25:18 IST 2022