Himachal Pradesh High Court
Sandeep Bhardwaj vs State Of H.P. And Others on 1 September, 2015
Bench: Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Tarlok Singh Chauhan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.1007 of 2015 with CWP No.1014 of 2015
& CWP No.2735 of 2015
.
Reserved on: 25th August, 2015.
Pronounced on: September 1, 2015.
CWP No.1007 of 2015:
Sandeep Bhardwaj ..........Petitioner.
versus
State of H.P. and others. ...........Respondents.
of
CWP No.1014 of 2015:
Rajiv Negi ..........Petitioner.
versus
State of H.P. and others.
rt ...........Respondents.
CWP No.2735 of 2015:
Jai Dev Banka Gram Vikas Committee, Kharela ..........Petitioner.
versus
State of H.P. and others. ...........Respondents.
___________________________________________________________________
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice.
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr.R.K. Bawa, Senior Advocate, with
Mr.Amit Kumar Dhumal, Advocate, in CWP
No.1007 of 2015.
Mr.Ajay Mohan Goel, Advocate, in CWP
No.1014 of 2015.
Mr.Pranay Pratap Singh, Advocate, in
CWP No.2735 of 2015.
For the respondents: Mr.Shrawan Dogra, Advocate
General, with Mr.Romesh Verma &
Mr.Anup Rattan, Addl.A.Gs., and
Mr.J.K. Verma & Mr.Vikram Thakur,
Dy.A.Gs., for respondents-State.
Mr.J.S. Bhogal, Senior Advocate, with
Mr.Parmod Negi, Advocate, for
respondent No.7, in CWP No.1014 of
2015.
________________________________________________________
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:50:35 :::HCHP
...2...
Mansoor Ahmad Mir, C.J. (Oral)
.
All the three writ petitions are being disposed of together by this common judgment as the issue involved is common and overlapping.
2. The petitioners in CWP No.1007 of 2015 and CWP of No.1014 of 2015 have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court challenging the action of the respondents-State, whereby the rt tenders of the petitioners have been cancelled, while in CWP No.2735 of 2015, the petitioner has sought directions to the State Authorities to complete the construction of the road, (also the subject matter of CWP No.1014 of 2015, supra), expeditiously, on the grounds taken in memos of the writ petitions.
3. Facts, as are emerging, in brief, are that the respondents-State invited bids, vide notice inviting tenders, dated 27th August, 2014, (hereinafter referred to as the tender notice), for the following two works:
"Sr.No.1 Name of Work C/O link road from Shalabag Kuhal Dharanaghatti road in km 0/000 to 3/645 (SH:-
Formation cutting 5/7 mtrs. i/c Retaining/Breast Wall, X drainage works, P/L Kharanja stone soling C/O Katcha side drain, C/O PCC parapets, C/O dumping site in km. 0/000 to 3/645) (UNDER NABARD RIDF-XIX), Estimated Cost 1,48,38,615/-, EMD 1,81,000/-, Cost of Tender 5000/-, Eligible class of Contractor Class A. ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:50:35 :::HCHP ...3...
Sr.No.2, Name of Work C/O Bhutti Kharahan Dealth .
road (portion Lahru to Khadaila in km. 5/840 to 10/360) (SH:- Formation cutting 5/7 mtr. wide i/c R/Wall, X- drainage work, P/L essential soling C/O Katcha drain, C/O dumping site in km. 5/840 to 10/360) (Under NABARD RIDF-XIX, Estimated Cost 2,78,20,151/-, EMD 3,11,000/-, Cost of Tender 5000/-, Eligible class of of Contractor Class A."
4. In pursuance to the aforesaid tender notice, the rt petitioner in CWP No.1007 of 2015 submitted his tender for the work mentioned at Sl.No.1, while the petitioner in CWP No.1014 of 2015 submitted his tender for the work mentioned at Sl.No.2 of the tender notice, alongwith other bidders. Thereafter, the technical bids of all the participant bidders were opened. The technical bids of the petitioners were found responsive, so the financial bids were opened by the respondents. It is averred that the cases of the petitioners were processed further for allotment of the works in question. It is further averred that in pursuance to the meeting of the Tender Evaluation Committee held on 13th January, 2015, it was recommended that the entire tender process be cancelled and it was directed that fresh tenders be invited for the works in question on the ground that some of the contractors were not aware of condition No.26.5 contained in the tender notice. Thus, the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:50:35 :::HCHP ...4...
petitioners, in both the writ petitions, have sought quashment of .
the decision taken by the Tender Evaluation Committee in its meeting held on 13th January, 2015.
5. Respondents have filed replies and have made an effort to justify the impugned action. The petitioners filed of rejoinders thereto.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties rt and have gone through the material placed on the record.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners in CWPs No.1007 and 1014 of 2015 submitted that the action of the respondents-State, whereby the entire tender process has been cancelled, is arbitrary, erroneous and suffers from material illegality.
It was further submitted that the State Authorities cannot take a U-
turn and cancel the tender process on the sole ground that some of the contractors were not aware of condition No.26.5 of the tender notice, after the opening of the financial bids. It was also submitted that the decision making process of cancelling the tender process is bad in law and the withdrawal of the tender notice has adversely affected the petitioners.
8. On the other hand, the learned Advocate General submitted that the action of the respondents in annulling the tender process was in the larger public interest and no mala fides ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:50:35 :::HCHP ...5...
are attributable to the respondents. He further submitted that in .
tender matters, the scope of judicial review is very limited. Judicial review is permissible only in case decision is mala fide or intended to favour someone or the same is irrational. He further submitted that in the instant petitions, there is nothing on the file to show that of the respondents-State have acted in an arbitrary manner or with a view to favour someone or the decision taken is against the rt interests of the public at large. It was further submitted that the respondents-State have annulled the tender process in order to have best persons to execute the works in question.
9. In support of his submissions, the learned Advocate General relied upon the decisions in cases Jagdish Mandal vs. State of Orissa and others, (2007) 14 SCC 517, Michigan Rubber (India) Limited, (2012) 8 SCC 216, Tejas Constructions and Infrastructure Private Limited vs. Municipal Council, Sendhwa and another, (2012) 6 SCC 464, Mass Binda Express Carrier and another (supra), Tata Cellular vs. Union of India (supra), M/s Siemens Aktiengeselischaft & S. Ltd. vs. DMRC Ltd. & Ors., JT 2014 (3) SC 290, Villianpur Iyarkkai Padukappu Maiyam vs. Union of India and others, (2009) 7 SCC 561, and Heinz India Private Limited and antoher vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2012) 5 SCC 443.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:50:35 :::HCHP...6...
10. Thus, the core issue needs to be determined in CWPs .
No.1007 of 2015 and 1014 of 2015 is - Whether a tender notice can be withdrawn midway, particularly, when the technical bids and the financial bids of the participants were opened, on the ground that the Contractors were not aware of a particular condition, of which was duly published in the tender notice. The answer is in the negative for the following reasons.
11. rt The Tender Evaluation Committee held its meeting on 13th January, 2015. A perusal of the minutes of the meeting, on the basis which the tender process has been cancelled, shows that the Members of the Committee observed that fair competition could not be held as some of the contractors were not aware of condition No.26.5 of the tender notice. It is apt to reproduce relevant portion of the minutes of the meeting, dated 13th January, 2015, hereunder:
"Hence from the perusal of available records the committee feels that some of the contractor are not aware of the condition No.26.5 of aforesaid DNIT and consider that during qua tender process fair competition could not be held as such committee unanimously decides that these tender should be cancelled and works should be re-tendered, so that there is fair competition."::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:50:35 :::HCHP
...7...
12. Thus, a glace of the minutes of the meeting of the .
Tender Evaluation Committee, held on 13th January, 2015, would show that there is nothing which is suggestive of the fact that the said decision was taken in larger public interest. No doubt, it has been mentioned in the minutes of the meeting that, in order to of have a fair competition, the entire tender process requires to be cancelled, however, the foundation for the said decision, as has rt been given in the minutes of the meeting, is that some of the contractors were not aware of some conditions in the tender notice, for which reason they failed to participate in the tender process. Once the tender notice was published, it does not lie in the mouth of any person to say that he was not aware of the terms and conditions contained in the tender notice.
13. Respondents have tried to justify the decision of the Committee by stating that there was no fair competition and therefore, the tender process was annulled in the larger public interest. However, a perusal of the minutes of the meeting (supra) shows that no such ground is spelled out in the said minutes. It is nowhere said that the decision taken by the Committee was in the interest of the public. Only what the Committee has said, at the cost of repetition, is that since there was no fair competition amongst the eligible bidders, therefore, the Committee decided to ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:50:35 :::HCHP ...8...
annul the entire process in order to have a fair competition, which .
was not a ground available, especially at a stage when the financial bids of the responsive bidders stood opened by the respondents-State. Thus, all this exercise appears to be an afterthought.
of
14. Viewed thus, the submissions of the learned Advocate General are devoid of any force and the decisions referred to are rt distinguishable. On the contrary, the ratio laid down in all these decisions is that the tender process is also subject to judicial review.
15. The Apex Court in series of judgments has laid down the tests and guidelines as to how, in contract matters, an administrative action can be questioned.
16. The Apex Court in case titled as Food Corporation of India versus M/s Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries, reported in (1993) 1 Supreme Court Cases 71, has laid down the guidelines where the Court can intervene. It is apt to reproduce paras 7 and 8 of the judgment herein:
"7. In contractual sphere as in all other State actions, the State and all its instrumentalities have to conform to Article 14 of the Constitution of which non- arbitrariness is a significant facet. There is no unfettered discretion in public law: A public authority possesses powers only to use them for public good. This imposes the duty to act fairly and to adopt a procedure which is 'fairplay in action'. Due ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:50:35 :::HCHP ...9...
observance of this obligation as a part of good administration raises a reasonable or legitimate .
expectation in every citizen to be treated fairly in his interaction with the State and its instrumentalities, with this element forming a necessary component of the decision-making process in all State actions. To satisfy this requirement of non-arbitrariness in a State action, it is, therefore, necessary to consider and give due weight to the reasonable or legitimate expectations of the persons likely to be affected by the decision or else of that unfairness in the exercise of the power may amount to an abuse or excess of power apart from affecting the bona fides of the decision in a given case. The decision so made would be exposed to challenge on the ground of arbitrariness. Rule of law rt does not completely eliminate discretion in the exercise of power, as it is unrealistic, but provides for control of its exercise by judicial review.
8. The mere reasonable or legitimate expectation of a citizen, in such a situation, may not y itself be a distinct enforceable right, but failure to consider and give due weight to it may render the decision arbitrary, and this is how the requirement of due consideration of a legitimate expectation forms part of the principle of non-arbitrariness, a necessary concomitant of the rule of law. Every legitimate expectation is a relevant factor requiring due consideration in a fair decision- making process. Whether the expectation of the claimant is reasonable or legitimate in the context is a question of fact in each case. Whenever the question arises, it is to be determined not according to the claimant's perception but in larger public interest wherein other more important considerations may outweigh what would otherwise have been the legitimate expectation of the claimant. A bona fide decision of the public authority reached in this manner would satisfy the requirement of non-arbitrariness and withstand judicial scrutiny. The doctrine of legitimate expectation gets assimilated in the rule of la and operates in our legal system in this manner and to this extent."::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:50:35 :::HCHP
...10...
17. The Apex Court in Tata Cellular versus Union of .
India, reported in (1994) 6 Supreme Court Cases 651, has held that it is the duty of the Court to make a balance and the administrative action of the State Authorities can be reviewed by the Courts, in order to prevent arbitrariness or favouritism. It of is apt to reproduce paragraphs 70, 71 and 74 of the judgment herein: rt "70. It cannot be denied that the principles of judicial review would apply to the exercise of contractual powers by Government bodies in order to prevent arbitrariness or favouritism. However, it must be clearly stated that there are inherent limitations in exercise of that power of judicial review. Government is the guardian of the finances of the State. It is expected to protect the financial interest of the State. The right to refuse the lowest or any other tender is always available to the Government. But, the principles laid down in Article 14 of the Constitution have to be kept in view while accepting or refusing a tender. There can be no question of infringement of Article 14 if the Government tries to get the best person or the best quotation. The right to choose cannot be considered to be an arbitrary power. Of course, if the said power is exercised for any collateral purpose the exercise of that power will be struck down.
71. Judicial quest in administrative matters has been to find the right balance between the administrative discretion to decide matters whether contractual or political in nature or issues of social policy; thus they are not essentially justifiable and the need to remedy any unfairness. Such an unfairness is set right by judicial review.
72. ................
73. ................
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:50:35 :::HCHP...11...
74. Judicial review is concerned with reviewing not the .
merits of the decision in support of which the application for judicial review is made, but the decision-making process itself."
18. The Apex Court in a latest judgment rendered in the case titled as Maa Binda Express Carrier and another of versus North-East Frontier Railway and others, reported in (2014) 3 Supreme rt Court Cases 760, held that the tenderer has an enforceable right under law and that right cannot be taken away without any justification and in case the same is done, the action is subject to judicial review. It is apt to reproduce paras 9 to 11 of the judgment herein:
"9. Suffice it to say that in the matter of award of contracts the Government and its agencies have to act reasonably and fairly at all points of time. To that extent the tenderer has an enforceable right in the Court who is competent to examine whether the aggrieved party has been treated unfairly or discriminated against to the detriment of public interest. (See: Meerut Development Authority v. Association of Management Studies and Anr. etc. (2009) 6 SCC 171 and Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd. (2000) 1 SCR 505).
10. The scope of judicial review in contractual matters was further examined by this Court in Tata Cellular v.
Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 651, Raunaq International Ltd.'s case (supra) and in Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa and Ors. (2007) 14 SCC 517 besides several other decisions to which we need not refer.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:50:35 :::HCHP...12...
11. In Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. (2012) 8 SCC 216 the legal position on the .
subject was summed up after a comprehensive review and principles of law applicable to the process for judicial review identified in the following words: (SCC p. 229, paras 23-24) "23. From the above decisions, the following principles emerge:
of
(a) the basic requirement of Article 14 is fairness in action by the State, and non-arbitrariness in essence and substance is the heartbeat of fair play. These actions are amenable to the judicial review only to the extent that the State must act rt validly for a discernible reason and not whimsically for any ulterior purpose. If the State acts within the bounds of reasonableness, it would be legitimate to take into consideration the national priorities;
(b) fixation of a value of the tender is entirely within the purview of the executive and courts hardly have any role to play in this process except for striking down such action of the executive as is proved to be arbitrary or unreasonable. If the Government acts in conformity with certain healthy standards and norms such as awarding of contracts by inviting tenders, in those circumstances, the interference by Courts is very limited;
(c) In the matter of formulating conditions of a tender document and awarding a contract, greater latitude is required to be conceded to the State authorities unless the action of tendering authority is found to be malicious and a misuse of its statutory powers, interference by Courts is not warranted;
(d) Certain preconditions or qualifications for tenders have to be laid down to ensure that the contractor has the capacity and the resources to successfully execute the work; and ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:50:35 :::HCHP ...13...
(e) If the State or its instrumentalities act reasonably, fairly and in public interest in .
awarding contract, here again, interference by Court is very restrictive since no person can claim fundamental right to carry on business with the Government.
24. Therefore, a Court before interfering in tender or contractual matters, in exercise of power of judicial review, should pose to itself the following questions:
of
(i) Whether the process adopted or decision made by the authority is mala fide or intended to favour someone; or whether the process adopted or decision made is so arbitrary and irrational that the court can say: "the decision is such that no rt responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could have reached"; and
(ii) Whether the public interest is affected. If the answers to the above questions are in negative, then there should be no interference under Article
226.""
19. It is worthwhile to note here that the ground which is projected and which is made the foundation for passing the impugned order was also available to the respondents at the time of opening the technical bid. The respondents opened the technical bids, declared the successful bidders and thereafter, they opened the financial bids and found who was the lowest bidder and after a considerable period, passed the order, is suggestive of the fact that the respondents have not exercised the said power at the relevant point of time and therefore, it becomes ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:50:35 :::HCHP ...14...
imperative for the Court to examine whether the decision making .
process was fair, reasonable and transparent.
20. Our this view is fortified by the decision of the Apex Court in case titled as M/s. Siemens Aktiengeselischaft & S. Ltd.
versus DMRC Ltd. & Ors., reported in 2014 AIR SCW 1249, of wherein it has been held that the Court has powers to examine the illegality and the irregularities of the process rt relating to contract and the Court can examine whether the decision making process was fair, reasonable and transparent. It is apt to reproduce para 22 of the judgment herein:
"22. There is no gainsaying that in any challenge to the award of contact before the High Court and so also before this Court what is to be examined is the legality and regularity of the process leading to award of contract. What the Court has to constantly keep in mind is that it does not sit in appeal over the soundness of the decision. The Court can only examine whether the decision making process was fair, reasonable and transparent. In cases involving award of contracts, the Court ought to exercise judicial restraint where the decision is bonafide with no perceptible injury to public interest."
21. The Writ Court, while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, has wide powers and can reach injustice wherever found. It is apt to reproduce paras ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:50:35 :::HCHP ...15...
14 and 18 of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the .
case titled as Bangalore Development Authority versus M/s.
Vijaya Leasing Ltd. & Anr., reported in 2013 AIR SCW 3463, herein:
"14. To appreciate the legal position we only wish to of refer to two of the decisions of this Court reported in Dwarakanath v. Income Tax Officer -1965 (2) SCJ 296 and Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd & Ors. v. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha & Ors. - 1980 (2) SCC 593. In Dwarakanath case the Supreme Court stated as rt under:
"This article is couched incomprehensive phraseology and it ex facie confers a wide power on the High Courts to reach injustice wherever it is found. The Constitution designedly used a wide language in describing the nature of the power, the purpose for which and the person or authority against whom it can be exercised. It can issue writs in the nature of prerogative writs as understood in England; but the scope of those writs also is widened by the use of the expression 'nature', for the said expression does not equate the writs that can be issued in India with those in England, but only draws an analogy from them. That apart, High Courts can also issue directions, orders or writs other than the prerogative writs. It enables the High Courts to mould the reliefs to meet the peculiar and complicated requirements of this country. Any attempt to equate the scope of the power of the High Court under Article 226 of Constitution with that of the English Courts to issue prerogative writs is to introduce the unnecessary procedural restrictions grown over the years in a comparatively small country like England with a unitary form of Government to a vast country like India functioning under a federal structure. Such a construction defeats the purpose of the Article itself."
(Emphasis added) ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:50:35 :::HCHP ...16...
15 .......................
.
16. .......................
17. .......................
18. Therefore, while exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the learned Single Judge came across the above incongruities in the proceedings of the Hon'ble Minister of which resulted in the issuance of de-notification dated 05.10.1999. We fail to note as to how the ultimate order of the learned Single Judge in setting aside such a patent illegality can be held to be beyond the powers vested in the Constitutional Court. The conclusion of rt this Court in Gujarat Steel Tubes Case (supra) that judicial daring is not daunted when glaring injustice demands even affirmative action and that authorities exercising their powers should not exceed the statutory jurisdiction and correctly administer the law laid down by the statute under which they act are all principles which are to be scrupulously followed and when a transgression of their limits is brought to the notice of the Court in the course of exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, it cannot be held that interference in such an extraordinary situation to set right an illegality was unwarranted."
22. The Apex Court in the case titled as Asia Foundation & Construction Ltd. versus Trafalgar House Construction (I) Ltd. and others, reported in (1997) 1 Supreme Court Cases 738, has held that the Court should intervene in the given facts of a particular case. It is apt to reproduce para 11 of the judgment herein:
"11. This being the position, in our considered opinion, the High court was not justified in interfering with the award by going into different clauses of the bid document and then coming to the conclusion that the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:50:35 :::HCHP ...17...
terms provided for modifications or corrections even after a specified date and further coming to the .
conclusion that respondent 1 being the lowest bidder there was no reason for the Port Trust to award the contract in favour of the appellant. We cannot lose sight of the fact of escalation of cost in such project on account of delay and the time involved and further in a coordinated project like this, if one component is not worked out the entire project gets delayed and the enormous cost on that score if rebidding is done. The of High court has totally lost sight of this fact while directing the rebidding. In our considered opinion, the direction of rebidding in the facts and circumstances of the present case instead of being in the public interest would be grossly detrimental to the public rt interest."
23. The learned Advocate General also sought to justify the impugned order on the grounds which are not spelled out in the impugned order. Therefore, another important question is -
Whether the respondents can support their decision on the reasons which are not given in the impugned order. The answer is in the negative for the simple reason that the impugned order is to be tested on the language used and the reasons assigned in the same. It cannot be supplemented by any other reason by way of pleadings and affidavits.
24. Our this view is fortified by the decision of the Apex Court in Mohinder Singh Gill vs. Chief Election Commissioner, (1978) 1 SCC 405, which decision has been discussed by the Apex Court in its latest decision in Rashmi Metaliks Limited and another vs. Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority and others, (2013) ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:50:35 :::HCHP ...18...
10 Supreme Court Cases 95. It is apt to reproduce paragraphs 14 .
to 16 of the said decision hereunder:
"14. So far as the first point is concerned, it needs to be dealt with short shrift for the reason that the Courts below have not thought it relevant for discussion, having, in their wisdom, considered it sufficient to non-suit the Appellant-company for its failure on the second count. It has, however, been explained by Mr. Vishwanathan, learned Senior Counsel for of the Appellant-company that at the material time there was no blacklisting or delisting of the Appellant-company and that in those circumstances it was not relevant to make any disclosure in this regard. The very fact that the Tendering rt Authority, in terms of its communication dated 22nd July 2013 had not adverted to this ground at all, lends credence to the contention that a valid argument had been proffered had this ground been raised. Regardless of the weight, pithiness or sufficiency of the explanation given by the Appellant-company in this regard, this issue in its entirety has become irrelevant for our cogitation for the reason that it does not feature as a reason for the impugned rejection. This ground should have been articulated at the very inception itself, and now it is not forensically fair or permissible for the Authority or any of the Respondents to adopt this ground for the first time in this second salvo of litigation by way of a side wind.
15. The impugned Judgment is indubitably a cryptic one and does not contain the reasons on which the decision is predicated. Since reasons are not contained in the impugned Judgment itself, it must be set aside on the short ground that a party cannot be permitted to travel beyond the stand adopted and expressed by it in its earlier decision.
16. The following observations found in the celebrated decision in Mohinder Singh Gill vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi, are relevant to this question :
"8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:50:35 :::HCHP ...19...
time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We .
may here draw attention to the observations of Bose J.
in Gordhandas Bhanji (AIR p. 18, para 9) '9. ..................Public orders publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders of made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the acting and conduct of those to whom they are rt addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself.' Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow order."
25. The re-tendering may result in cost escalation, which is against the interest of public at large who have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by way of CWP No.2735 of 2015 with the prayer that the road (subject matter of CWP No.1014 of 2015) be constructed as early as possible. The action of the respondents-
State has delayed the process and in case fresh process is to be started, that will amount to depriving the general public of enjoying the facility of road, which is considered to be the lifeline in the present scenario, and shall also adversely affect the State exchequer.
26. This Court, in a similar set of facts, in CWP No.1756 of 2014, titled M/s Andritz Hydro Pvt. Ltd. vs. Himachal Pradesh Power ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:50:35 :::HCHP ...20...
Corporation Limited, decided on 26th May, 2014, has held that in .
contractual matters, the Court has the power to intervene and therefore, directed the respondents to take the tender process to its logical end, which decision of this Court has attained finality.
27. Applying the tests in this case, the petitioners in both of the writ petitions have carved out a case for quashing the impugned decision, dated 13th January, 2015, taken by the Tender rt Evaluation Committee, (Annexure P-5 in CWP No.1007 of 2015 and Annexure P-7 in CWP No.1014 of 2015), and the same are quashed.
The respondents-State are directed to do the needful as per the law/Rules occupying the field expeditiously. All the three petitions are accordingly disposed of.
(Mansoor Ahmad Mir) Chief Justice.
September 01, 2015 (Tarlok Singh Chauhan)
(Tilak) Judge
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:50:35 :::HCHP