Gauhati High Court
Ganesh Electric Stores vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 4 May, 2007
Equivalent citations: 2007(2)CTLJ333(GAU), 2007(3)GLT454
Author: Amitava Roy
Bench: Amitava Roy
JUDGMENT Amitava Roy, J.
1. Apart from questioning the validity of Rule 11.2 of the Rules of Enlistment of Contractors Under CPWD, 2005 (hereinafter also referred to as 'the Rules'), prescribing a banker's certificate from a scheduled bank for enlistment of a contractor with the Central Public Works Department (hereafter for short referred to as 'the CPWD') as well as for revalidation of such enlistment, the petitioner has assailed as well, in this proceeding, the letters dated 18.10.2006 and 30.10.2006, insisting on the compliance of the imperatives of paragraph 3.3(iii) of the Rules, as a condition precedent for such revalidation.
2. I have heard Mr. A.B. Choudhury, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. J.P. Sharma and Ms. S.A. Choudhury, Advocates for the petitioner and Mr. N.K. Baruah, learned Central Government Counsel for the respondents.
3. The pleaded account of the relevant facts is indispensably essential to appropriately evaluate the rival contentions. The petitioner has introduced itself to be a registered partnership firm and an enlisted contractor with the CPWD vide No. 229 dated 25.05.1998, the term whereof had expired on 24.05.2006. As permissible under the Rules, more particularly, Rule 19 thereof, the petitioner on 18.05.2006, submitted an application in the prescribed form for the revalidation of its enlistment. According to the petitioner, under Rule 19, such an application along with all essential documents, is acceptable till the date of expiry of the enlistment and even, thereafter, with the prescribed late fee and on receipt thereof, provisional extension for a period up to six months is granted as a matter of course. Further, even, if, such an order of provisional extension is not issued, the existing enlistment is deemed to be renewed for a period of six months from the date of expiry of the validity thereof. While the application of the petitioner was thus pending, the Executive Engineer (EL), Guwahati Electrical Division, Divisions I and II, CPWD, Guwahati invited tenders for various works under the department. Though the petitioner applied for the tender papers, the same was refused on the ground that the validity of its enlistment had expired on 24.05.2006. The decision to the said effect was conveyed to the petitioner on 20.06.2006 in writing. Though, it, by its letters dated 06.06.2006, 17.06.2006 and 19.06.2006, underlined that its application for revalidation of the enlistment was pending and that, therefore, it was automatically entitled to a provisional revalidation thereof, for six months, the same did not evoke any response. Having perceived the action of the respondent authorities to be in contravention of the Rules, the petitioner brought his grievance before this Court in WP (C) No. 3155 of 2006, for a direction to the respondents for revalidation of its enlistment and issuance of tender papers for the works advertised. This Court by its order dated 31.07.2006, while noticing the pleaded stand that the documents required for revalidation of the petitioner's enlistment had already been forwarded, directed the concerned respondent authorities to grant the revalidation within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of the documents, if the same were found to be in accord with the requirement of the Rules.
4. In their affidavit, the respondents in WP (C) No. 3155 of 2006, however, had contended that the revalidation application of the petitioner suffered from the following deficiencies:
(i) Solvency certificate did not mention the names of the partners of the firm and was not as per format given.
(ii) No list of T & P, machinery and equipment was given.
(iii) Copies of diploma/degree certificate of technical staff working with petitioner firm were not submitted.
(iv) Copy of partnership deed and power of attorney, duly attested by the notary public, was required.
According to the petitioner, the above, having been communicated to it on 04.07.2006, it submitted the requisite documents vide its letters dated 29.07.2006, 28.08.2006 and 05.09.2006. In the meantime, the Director General of Works, CPWD, by his letter dated 11.07.2006, having returned the bank draft along with the revalidation application for its submission in the name of the Chief Engineer (CSQ), the petitioner submitted the required bank draft on 29.08.2006.
5. As in spite of its conformance with all the essentialities, and prerequisites for revalidation, no order to that effect was passed and instead, it was debarred from participating in the ongoing tender process for various works under the department, the petitioner again approached this Court with WP (C) No. 4705 of 2006, inter alia, praying for an order for issuance of provisional enlistment and participation in the tender process. By order dated 26.09.2006, the said proceeding was disposed of directing the petitioner to comply with the requirements set out in the letter dated 13.09.2006 of the respondents within 7 days. It was ordered that once the documents so requisitioned, were submitted by the petitioner within the time frame fixed, the respondent authorities would decide the matter on an immediate basis. The petitioner has alleged that it furnished the documents, but the respondents protracted the matter and by the impugned letters dated 18.10.2006 and 13.10.2006, insisted on a banker's solvency certificate from a scheduled bank and production of purchase proof of T & P and particulars of its engineering establishment, as stipulated under para 3.3(iii) of the Rules. In reply, the petitioner pointed out that the Industrial Co-operative Bank Ltd. though not a scheduled bank, was one duly licensed by the Reserve Bank of India in accordance with the banking regulations and that the certificate issued by it satisfied the relevant covenant to the said effect in the Rules. It further highlighted that a list of the T & P machinery, had already been submitted, but as it was not feasible to submit all the copies of purchase memos/bills pertaining thereto, it offered its T & P items to be physically verified by the authorised agents of the department for their satisfaction. It also asserted that the attested copies of the degree/diploma of its technical staff, had already been submitted and that no deduction of income tax at source of its employees, was being effected. The petitioner has averred that along with the said letter, it also submitted copies of some of the memos/bills related to purchase of various machines and tools along with the certificate issued by the Executive Engineer (E), Guwahati Electrical Division, Central, ASEB, Guwahati, as a proof of possession thereof. Based on these pleadings, the petitioner has impugned Rule 11.2 of the Rules, stipulating a financial solvency certificate from a scheduled bank to be arbitrary, discriminatory and unconstitutional. The refusal on the part of the respondent authorities to grant revalidation of its enlistment, has been denounced in the attending facts and circumstances, as arbitrary, whimsical and demonstrative of executive fiat.
6. In their counter, the respondents, while denying the imputations levelled, have asserted that submission of an application for revalidation, does not entitle an applicant to an automatic or deemed provisional extension and that pendency of such an application does not vest any right on it to participate in any tender process of the department. They emphasized that the requirement of a banker's solvency certificate by a scheduled bank, is a mandatory norm and as the petitioner's application for revalidation was deficient in that regard and further the mandate of paragraph 3.3(iii) of the Schedule 9 to the Rules, pertaining the proof of T & P purchase and dates of its technical staff, had not been complied with its request for revalidation could not be considered in accordance with the Rules. Referring to the orders dated 31.07.2006 and 26.09.2006 of this Court in the earlier writ proceedings, the answering respondents have contended that as the requirements as per the letter dated 13.09.2006 of the department had not yet been satisfied, no order of revalidation could be passed. Endorsing the validity of Rule 11.2, it has been averred that the Rules embodying certain parameters to evaluate the financial and technical capabilities of the intending firm, so as to assure enlistment of organizations, which can execute the government works efficiently and effectively ensuring maximum utilization of public money. As one of the criteria for judging the financial capability of a firm, is the banker's certificate, the department has insisted on one to be issued by a scheduled bank, which is an institution under the direct control and supervision of the Reserve Bank of India. According to the respondents, a non-scheduled bank being not under the control and management of Reserve Bank of India, any solvency certificate issued by it, cannot be relied upon. They have maintained that the requirement of a banker's solvency certificate by a scheduled bank, has been devised in the interest of the administration and public revenue and being uniformly applicable, is unimpeachable as unconstitutional and invalid.
7. Mr. Choudhury has persuasively urged that for all practical purposes, there being no difference between a scheduled and a non-scheduled bank, so far as the solvency certificate issued thereby is concerned, Rule 11.2 is patently arbitrary, unfair and is liable to be adjudged unconstitutional and null and void being violative of Article 14. As the insistence for a solvency certificate from a scheduled bank has no perceptible nexus with the purpose sought to be achieved thereby, such a prescription besides being illegal and illogical, is manifestly oppressive denying an equal opportunity of participation in a public process in contravention of Article 19 of the Constitution of India. Referring to Section 42(6) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (hereafter referred to as 'the Act'), the learned senior Counsel, contended that no guarantee thereunder by the RBI as a security by it for the amount in deposit with the scheduled bank is decipherable. Mr. Choudhury, insisted that in any view of the matter, a policy regulating an administrative procedure has to be fair, reasonable and realistic and on that touchstone as well, the requirement of a solvency certificate by a scheduled bank cannot be inflexibly mandatory. The demand of a solvency certificate by a scheduled bank portrays a total non-application of mind of the respondents, he urged. As the petitioner has submitted a certificate in the form as prescribed by the CPWD manual, the non-acceptance thereof, in the above premise, is whimsical and high handed de hors any acceptable logic or rationale. In the alternative, Mr. Choudhury, pleaded that having regard to the purpose for which such a certificate is required, the prescription of the same to be issued by a scheduled bank has to be construed directory in nature and, therefore, the non-acceptance of the petitioner's certificate, is indefensible and flawed. Moreover, as no complaint or reservation whatsoever, with regard to the petitioner's financial capability or the quality of its works, had ever been made by the respondent authorities, the impugned action is liable to be adjudged illegal and unsustainable in law. The petitioner having complied with all other stipulations, including those bearing on T & P and industrial establishment, there is no conceivable justification for the respondents' refusal to revalidate its enlistment and, therefore, a writ of mandamus is called for to redress its grievances.
8. Mr. Choudhury to reinforce his arguments placed reliance dn the decisions of the Apex Court in Poddar Steel Corporation v. Ganesh Engineering Works and Ors. and of the Bombay High Court in AIR 1984 Bombay 351 B.D. Yadav & M.R. Meshram, Engineers & Contractors v. Administrator of the City of Nagpur and Anr.
9. Mr. Baruah, as against this, has submitted that the petitioner's application being incomplete, vis-a-vis, the enjoinments of the Rules, its grievances are misconceived and that there being no cause of action for the instant petition, it is liable to be dismissed. As the petitioner, in spite of the directions issued by this Court in the earlier proceedings, involving the same issue, had not met the deficiencies in its documents, it is estopped from impugning the decision of the respondents in compliance of the Rules. Endorsing the pleaded stand of the respondents, the learned Counsel urged, referring to Section 42(6) of the Act, that a scheduled and non-scheduled bank cannot be placed at par and the objective of obtaining a solvency certificate being a measure of guarantee of the financial soundness of the applying contractor and the quality of works expected of it, the criterion of such a certificate by a scheduled bank, is essentially mandatory. Pointing out that the requirement of solvency certificate from a scheduled bank had been a prescription from before, the learned Counsel further contended that having regard to the underlying purpose thereof, Rule 11.2, is unassailable. This is, more so, as the said condition of eligibility for enlistment and revalidation has been made uniformly applicable to all. The petitioner not having been complied with the edicts of the Rules, cannot be heard to complain against the refusal to revalidate its enlistment, he urged.
10. The issue of moment pertains to the validity of Rule 11.2 of the Rules, which the petitioner has assailed to be arbitrary, discriminatory and unconstitutional. The Rules were made effective from 01.05.2005, repealing the Enlistment Rules, 2001. Rule 4 proclaims that the department would enlist contractors, who intend to work for it, with the purpose of having a ready list of suitable and competent contractors, so as to minimize the requirement of verification of their credentials at the time of individual tenders to be retained in the list, if they remain active in the department and perform well. It is, however, clarified that an enlisted contractor would only be entitled to be considered for the issue of tender papers subject to the conditions laid down in each individual NIT, but the enlistment would not confer any right on him either to be issued the tender papers or awarded any work. Under Rule 7, the enlistment is to remain valid for a period of four years and can be revalidated in accordance with the Rules in that regard, signifying thereby that such revalidation is neither automatic nor as a matter of course on mere asking.
11. One of the criteria of eligibility for enlistment is the financial soundness of the contractor to be judged on the basis of the banker's certificate or the working capital certificate as the case may be, issued by his banker in the form prescribed in Annexure V to the Rules. Such a certificate has to be issued by a scheduled bank to be submitted in original in a bank sealed cover addressed to the enlistment authority. Rule 19 deals with the procedure for application for revalidation indicating, inter alia, that the application has to be in the prescribed form in Annexure VIII, along with all documents as per Annexure IX. Apart from underlying that the request for revalidation would be considered on merits, it is set out in Rule 19.1.4 that on receipt of the application for revalidation, complete in all respects and with all necessary documents, provisional extension up to six months from the date of expiry of enlistment/date of issue of order, whichever is latter, may be granted.
12. It is, thus, obvious from the referred provisions of the Rules that the underlying purpose of enlistment comprehended thereunder, is to register suitable and competent contractors for the departmental works. The process of enlistment, and for that matter revalidation, therefore, involves evaluation of the applying contractor's suitability and competence to execute its works when entrusted. There is no dissension at the bar that the Rules, more particularly Rule 11.2, stipulating the certificate of financial soundness by a scheduled bank is of uniform application. These Rules, which constitute ordained guidelines governing the matters provided therein, are indubitably binding on the parties concerned. The respondents, in particular, having framed the Rules, they are not free to depart therefrom at their discretion or convenience but are rather bound by those, whereby, they profess to conduct themselves in all enterprises envisioned thereby. Financial soundness, in the context of the magnitude of the works of the department to be administered by a contractor, irrefutably is one of the vital indices of suitability and cannot be compromised with. The guarantee of financial capability of a contractor is an assurance of satisfactory and timely implementation of the department's projects of public relevance.
13. Section 42 of the Act deals with the cash reserves of scheduled banks thereunder, to be deposited with the Reserve Bank of India. Sub-section (6) thereof, outlines the norms to be satisfied by a bank to be included in the Second Schedule of the Act. The requirements so prescribed to entitle a bank to be scheduled being of considerable significance, vis-a-vis, the issue under adjudication, the same are extracted hereinbelow:
(i) Has a paid-up capital and reserves of an aggregate value of not less than five lakhs of rupees;
(ii) Satisfies the bank that its affairs are not being conducted in a manner detrimental to the interests of its depositors; and
(iii) [Is a state co-operative bank or a company] as defined in [Section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956, or an institution notified by the Central Government in this behalf] or a corporation of a company incorporated by or under any law in force in any place [outside India].
14. A scheduled bank, if suffers from the following deficiencies under the above provision of the Act, can be directed to be excluded from the Second Schedule:
(i) the aggregate value of whose paid-up capital and reserves becomes at any time less than five lakhs of rupees; or
(ii) which is, in the opinion of the bank after making an inspection under Section 35 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, conducting its affairs to the detriment of the interests of its depositors; or
(iii) which goes into liquidation or otherwise ceases to carry on banking business.
15. The stipulations qualifying a bank to be included in the Second Schedule of the Act and the shortcomings of a already scheduled bank to be excluded therefrom (Second Schedule) brings sharply the difference between the two categories of such banking institutions. The imperatives to qualify a bank to be included in the Second Schedule, not only proclaim a control of the RBI on its functions and the reserves, but also endorse the credibility thereof, qua any certificate or guarantee issued or extended by it concerning any of its constituents. A certitude of the kind evinced by a scheduled bank, is evidently not assured of a non-scheduled bank. The eventualities whereunder a scheduled bank can be rendered a non-scheduled one, fortifies that a scheduled bank and a non-scheduled bank, cannot be equated, as contended on behalf of the petitioner.
16. Considering the purpose for which the financial suitability is to be judged by the department, as disclosed in its affidavit, there exists intelligible differentia to justify the insistence for a solvency certificate from a scheduled bank. As the department is under a constitutional obligation to guarantee itself that a contractor entrusted with public projects of strategic importance does not falter for its frail financial standing, a nexus between the prescription for a solvency certificate by a scheduled bank and the object sought to be achieved thereby, is strikingly perceptible. The reasons cited by the respondents in their counter in support of the covenant for such a certificate in the above premise, cannot be denounced as irrelevant, illegal, inappropriate or arbitrary. As it is, this court, in the exercise of its power of judicial review, cannot sit over the wisdom of the administrative authorities in prescribing organizational precepts to conduct their affairs unless visibly absurd, preposterous, unreasonable and repugnant to the accepted cannons of fairness, non-arbitrariness and transparency in action.
17. The Apex Court in Premium Granites and Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. , while dwelling on the scope of judicial review of a public policy and an administrative action based thereon, had cautioned that it is not in the domain of the court to embark upon an unchartered ocean of public policy in an exercise to consider as to whether a particular public policy is wise or a better public policy can be evolved. It held that such an exercise must be left to the discretion of the executive and legislative authorities as the case may be and the court is called upon to consider the validity of such a policy only when a challenge is made to it to infringe fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India or any other statutory right.
18. In Tata Cellular v. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 651 : 1995 (1) Arb. LR 193 (SC) the Apex Court, while dealing with a challenge to some of the tender conditions involved emphatically pronounced that the terms of the invitation to tender cannot be open to judicial scrutiny because such invitation is in the realm of contract and the decision to accept the tender or award the contract is reached by a process of negotiations on a qualitative assessment by experts.
19. Reiterating the above view in essence, the Apex Court in Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner, Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation and Ors. , had ruled that the Municipal Corporation was the best judge to determine the new terms and conditions prescribed by it in the notice inviting tenders for appointment of agents for collection of octroi and refrained from interfering therewith.
20. The conditions stipulated in notice inviting tenders for supply of high security vehicle registration plates were under scrutiny in Association of Registration Plates v. Union of India . While, reaffirming that no person could claim a fundamental right to carry on business with the government and that the only claim entertainable is a guarantee against unfair and discriminatory treatment in the process, the Apex Court observed that having regard to the nature of the contract, a greater latitude is required to be conceded to the State authorities. It held that certain preconditions for qualifications for tenderers have to be laid down to ensure that the contractor has the capacity and resources to successfully execute the work and unless the action of the tendering authority is found to be malicious and in misuse of its statutory powers, tender conditions are unassailable. The legal proposition enunciated in the authorities referred to hereinabove, though, pertains to tender conditions relatable to a process for distribution of State largesse, by an analogy of reasonings, the same would be applicable to the facts of the case in hand.
21. The decisions cited at the bar are distinguishable. In Poddar Steel Corporation, the award of the works for disposal of various ferrous scraps of the Indian Railways in favour of the appellant, was assailed on the ground that the earnest money had not been deposited in the manner as required by the notice inviting tender. Though, such a deposit was mandated to be made either by cash or by a demand draft on the State Bank of India, the appellant had offered the sum by a banker's cheque of Union Bank of India. The tender committee, however, had confirmed from the appellant's bank about the cheque issued by it before deciding to accept the tender. It was contended on behalf of the appellant before the Apex Court referring to several treatises on banking that a banker's cheque is as good as cash and that the irregularity, if any, was validly waived by the authority concerned. It was held by the Apex Court that as a matter a general proposition, it could not be said that an authority inviting tenders is bound to give effect to every term mentioned in the notice in meticulous details and that it is not entitled to waive even a technical irregularity of little or no significance. It observed that if the requirement in a tender notice is only ancillary or subsidiary in nature with the main object to be achieved, it should be open to the authority to deviate therefrom and not to insist upon the strict literal compliance thereof. In the contextual facts, the Apex Court ruled that the certified cheque of the Union Bank of India ought to be construed as sufficient for the purpose of achieving the object of the related condition. While, recording that finding, it also took note of the confirmation made by the tender committee from the Union Bank of India, as a matter of abundant caution. The waiver of strict compliance of the relevant clause was thus sustained.
22. Tender forms in B.D. Yadav & M.R. Meshram, Engineers & Contractors, in connection with unfinished work of the Yashwant Stadium, were issuable only to the approved eligible contractors of the jurisdictional Municipal Corporation (City Administration), State PWD and Central PWD. The petitioner and the respondent firm M/s. J.B. Construction Contractors offered their tenders and on completion of the evaluation process, the respondent firm was selected. It was, inter alia, contended by the petitioner that the respondent was not an approved eligible contractor, the earnest money was not deposited in terms of the advertisement and page 3 of the tender form was not signed by it. Their Lordships of the Bombay High Court referring to Bye-Law 13 of the Corporation, held it to permit submission of tenders even by an unapproved contractor and, therefore, negatived the challenge on the said count. With reference to the non-compliance of the stipulation of deposit of earnest money, it was held that the requirement that it should be made in the form of a call deposit or demand draft or national saving certificate, was an ancillary or subsidiary condition not essential to the purpose of the contract. While noticing that the page 3 of the tender form had not been signed by the respondent, Their Lordships, on a scrutiny of the respondent's tender as a whole and his conduct subsequent thereto, pursuing the process held that his intention to compete for the work was apparent. The decision to accept its tender in the accompanying circumstances was upheld.
23. In Foddar Steel Corporation the appellant had in fact made the deposit by a banker's cheque, which was contended to be equivalent to cash, one of the prescribed modes of such deposits as per the tender conditions. The Apex Court therein, was seized with an assailment of the validity of the discretional relaxation of the covenant of earnest money deposit. The administrative authority in that case, had already eased the rigour of the mode of deposit prescribed unlike in the instant case, where the solvency certificate by a scheduled bank, is being persistently insisted upon.
24. In B.D. Yadav & M.R. Meshram, Engineers & Contractors as well, the factual premise was different. Bye-Law 13, permitted submission of a tender by a non-approved contractor. Reservation appertaining to the departure from the prescribed mode of earnest money and incomplete tender was rejected on a consideration of the contemporaneous documents.
25. In none of these cases, the requirement of financial soundness was in issue. In my considered view, these two decisions in the present conspectus of facts do not advance the case of the petitioner. No allegation of mala fide has been made either. As alluded hereinabove, financial capability is vital to the assessment of a contractor's suitability to be enlisted for execution of the works of the department to be entrusted to it. Such a condition of eligibility, is thus, manifestly indispensable to the execution of the works and, therefore, has to be held to be mandatory.
26. The essentiality or otherwise of a stipulation is fathomable, on a consideration of its nature, the object it seeks to achieve and the scheme of the Rules in which it is engrafted. On a totality of the considerations as above, the irresistible conclusion is that the enjoinment of the solvency certificate by a scheduled bank is a peremptory condition and that the adherence thereto, by the respondents, cannot be construed to be arbitrary, unreasonable and illogical. The plea that the certificate has to be issued in a prescribed form, is of no significance, the decisive determinant being the institution issuing it and the consequential weight attached thereto qua Section 42 of the Act.
27. It is no longer res integra that in the matter of distribution of State largesse, no one has a fundamental right to claim the same or to be extended any preferential treatment therefor. The assurance is limited to the guarantee of fairness and equality in participation in the exercise to identify the most suitable.
28. The Apex Court in Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India and Ors. , while dwelling on the permissibility of an administrative authority to stray from any stipulation or norm framed by it for conducting itself, held in emphatic terms that an executive authority must rigorously hold to the standard by which it professes its action to be judged and it must scrupulously observe those standards on the pain of invalidation of its acts in violation of them. This dictum of administrative law, it ruled, had been judicially evolved as a check against the exercise of arbitrary power by the executive authority.
29. The cardinality of the instructions to bidders to sustain the rule of transparency and fairness in a tender process, was emphasized in unequivocal terms by the Apex Court in West Bengal State Electricity Board v. Patel Engineering Co. Ltd. and Ors. (2001) 2 SCC 451 : 2001 (1) Arb. LR 540 (SC) observing that a meandering therefrom would expose the process to the vice of discrimination, arbitrariness and favouritism repugnant to the rule of law and the constitutional values.
30. As Rule 4 of the Rules proclaims that the drill to enlist the contractors is for selecting those, who are fit and competent to execute the departmental works to be notified from time to time, the same yardstick as applicable for judging the suitability of a candidate for distribution of State largesse, would thus be extendable for the purpose of enlistment or revalidation thereof. The plea of oppression, the prescript of solvency certificate by a scheduled bank, if inviolably enforced, is thus not sustainable. In view of the determinations as above, the challenge to the validity of Rule 11.2 fails.
31. The orders of this Court disposing of the earlier proceedings refer to the stand of the respondents that the petitioner's application for revalidation is deficient, being not accompanied by the essential documents, more particularly, those concerning T & P machinery and equipments, credentials of its technical staff, etc. Though, the petitioner's correspondences appended to the writ petition dated 29.07.2006 and 08.11.2006, demonstrate that it had furnished the documents and particulars on the above counts, the department still insists, as is obvious from the letter dated 11.12.2006 (Annexure A to its affidavit) that its application is incomplete, inasmuch as, the solvency certificate by a scheduled bank, proof of purchase of T & P and other documents in terms of Clause 3(iv) of Annexure 9 of the Rules, have not been furnished.
32. The rival stands of the parties on this facet also give rise to a disputed question of fact, which this court, on the basis of the documents available, is not in a position to resolve. However, considering the correspondences referred to hereinabove, I am of the view that it would be in fitness of things that if the respondent authorities still insist that the petitioner's request for revalidation is not entertainable for want of the documents specified in Clause 3(iv) of Annexure 9 to the Rules, they would disclose those with specificity to it.
33. The construction on the scope of judicial review, in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been recounted time out of number and on date, is beyond debate. It is not akin to appellate jurisdiction permitting substitution of the views of an executive authority by this Court merely on disagreement therewith. If the view under challenge is a plausible one in the attending factual panorama and is not patently illegal, irrational or in defiance of logic or a yield of either non-consideration of relevant facts or appreciation of extraneous criteria or prompted by collateral purposes, no interference is warranted.
34. The impugned decision is not afflicted by any one or more of the invalidating vices. Viewing the requirement prescribed by Rule 11.2 and more importantly the ultimate bearing thereof, on the public projects to be undertaken, I am of the unhesitant opinion that the petitioner's contentions cannot be upheld. The petition is, therefore, devoid of merit and is dismissed. No costs.