Karnataka High Court
Sri Vinay R vs M/S Indian Oil Corporation Ltd on 9 November, 2022
Author: M. Nagaprasanna
Bench: M. Nagaprasanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF NOVEMBER , 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No.14925 OF 2022 (GM - RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION No.14919 OF 2022 (GM - RES)
IN WRIT PETITION No.14925 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
SRI BALKUNJE DIWAKAR SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
S/O LATE K.JAGANNATH SHETTY
G - 02, OM SHAKTI APARTMENTS
NO.1446/1438
25/26TH MAIN, 5TH 'A' CROSS
BTM LAYOUT, 2ND STAGE
BENGALURU - 560 076.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI K.SUMAN, SR.ADVOCATE A/W
SRI SIDDHARTH SUMAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M/S. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
INDIAN OIL BHAVAN
G -9, ALI YAVAR, JUNG MARG
BANDRA (EAST)
2
MUMBAI - 400 051
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2. M/S.INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.,
MARKETING DIVISION
BANGALORE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
INDIAN OIL BHAVAN
NO.28, FIRST FLOOR
ANJUMAN K.R.TOWER
P.KALINGA RAO (MISSION ROAD )
BENGALURU - 560 027
REPRESENTED BY ITS
DIVISIONAL MANAGER
(RETAIL SALES).
3. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER
(RETAIL SALES)
M/S INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.,
INDIAN OIL BHAVAN
NO.28, FIRST FLOOR
ANJUMAN K.R.TOWER
P.KALINGA RAO (MISSION ROAD)
BENGALURU - 560 027.
RESPONDENT NOS. 1 TO 3 ARE REGISTERED
UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI DHANANJAY V.JOSHI, SR.ADVOCATE A/W
SMT.KAVITHA D., ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
PAPER PUBLICATION GIVEN IN THE TIMES OF INDIA DTD
01.07.2022 (I.E., ANNEXURE-A) REGARDING THE NOTICE FOR
ENGAGEMENT OF THE SERVICE PROVIDER IN SO FAR AS IT
RELATES TO THE COCO RETAIL OUTLET AT 6TH MAIN, BTM LAYOUT
3
2ND STAGE, BENGALURU, AS ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND UNJUST
ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION No.14919 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
SRI VINAY R.,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
S/O LATE U.RAMA MURTHY
NO.11, 3RD A CROSS, J.C.NAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 086.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI K.SUMAN, SR.ADVOCATE A/W
SRI SIDDHARTH SUMAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M/S INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
INDIAN OIL BHAVAN, G -9,
ALI YAVAR, JUNG MARG
BANDRA (EAST)
MUMBAI - 400 051
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2. M/S.INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.,
MARKETING DIVISION
BANGALORE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
INDIAN OIL BHAVAN
NO.28, FIRST FLOOR
ANJUMAN K.R.TOWER
P.KALINGA RAO (MISSION ROAD )
BENGALURU - 560 027
REPRESENTED BY ITS
DIVISIONAL MANAGER
4
(RETAIL SALES).
3. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER
(RETAIL SALES)
M/S INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.,
INDIAN OIL BHAVAN
NO.28, FIRST FLOOR
ANJUMAN K.R.TOWER
P.KALINGA RAO (MISSION ROAD)
BENGALURU - 560 027.
RESPONDENT NOS. 1 TO 3 ARE REGISTERED
UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI DHANANJAY V.JOSHI, SR.ADVOCATE A/W
SMT.KAVITHA D., ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
PAPER PUBLICATION GIVEN IN THE TIMES OF INDIA
DTD.01.07.2022 ANNEXURE-A REGARDING THE NOTICE FOR
ENGAGEMENT OF THE SERVICE PROVIDER IN SO FAR AS IT
RELATES TO THE COCO RETAIL OUTLET AT DOBBASPET 1
(NATIONAL HIGHWAY NO.4 BANGALORE PUNE SECTION) AS
ARBITRARY ILLEGAL AND UNJUST ETC.,
THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 28.10.2022, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
5
ORDER
The petitioners, in both these petitions, are before this Court seeking to quash the notification dated 01-07-2022 with regard to engagement of service providers insofar as Corporation Owned Corporation Operated ('COCO' for short) outlets at 6th Main, BTM Layout, II Stage, Bangalore and Dabbaspet-1 (Old), National Highway No.4, Bangalore Pune Section and also seek quashment of a brochure which led to issuance of the notification. Since both the petitions seek one and the same relief and the facts being similar except events, they are taken up together and considered in this common order.
2. Heard Sri K.Suman, learned senior counsel representing the petitioners and Sri Dhananjay V.Joshi, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents.
3. Sans details, facts in brief, as borne out from the pleadings are as follows:-
6
WRIT PETITION NO.14925 of 2022
(i) The respondent is M/s Indian Oil Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation' for short). The petitioner claims to be an entrepreneur having rich experience in the field of running retail outlet of petroleum products and has been selected as a service provider for COCO retail unit run by the Corporation. The place of nature of execution of contract was in particular at 6th Main, BTM Layout, II Stage, Bangalore. It is the case of the petitioner that he was first appointed as a service provider in the said COCO retail unit of the Corporation in the year 2010 pursuant to a process initiated. The said appointment comes about on 20-08-2010. The contract was for providing manpower/service/human resource. Initially the contract was for a period of 3 years and the same was renewed from time to time. It is the case of the petitioner that due to the service rendered by him to the Corporation, he has received several encomiums for being an excellent service provider. On 01-01-2018 the contract was entered with the petitioner by the Corporation which was for a period of 3 years which came to an end on 01-01-2021. It appears 7 that the service of the petitioner was temporarily continued as COCO operator or service provider at the COCO retail outlet. When things stood thus, a notification comes to be issued on 28-08-2020 calling for application from eligible persons for appointment as service providers to such COCO retail units. One such COCO retail unit was the unit in which the petitioner is presently operating as a service provider. Pursuant to the said notification issued, several persons including the petitioner applied for selection as service provider for the COCO retail unit. The selection criteria was also notified in the said notification and the guidelines for evaluation of appointment of service provider. The petitioner, on an apprehension that another person Sri Venkatesh Prasad A.N. would be given higher marks in the interview, submitted a representation stating that the petitioner has already applied under the RTI regarding the documents submitted by the said Venkatesh Prasad.A.N. and requested to keep the selection of Venkatesh Prasad.A.N. in abeyance pending investigation on the allegations made in the representation. Sri Venkatesh Prasad.A.N. was ultimately selected on the ground that he was ranked No.1. This comes to be challenged by the petitioner before this Court in Writ Petition 8 No.11806 of 2021. This Court by its order dated 09-07-2021 stayed the operation of the order offering appointment in favour of Venkatesh Prasad.A.N. In terms of the interim order so granted, the petitioner is continuing as a service provider at the COCO retail unit where he was earlier functioning. During the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, it appears that the respondents issued a fresh notice of engagement of service provider to all its COCO retail units which were six in number including that of the petitioner completely changing the selection criteria and guidelines for evaluation. The notification comes to be issued on 01-07-2022 which indicated that detailed advertisement guidelines and brochure would be available on the website and sought engagement of service providers for all its COCO retail outlets. It is this subsequent act of the Corporation that is called in question by the petitioner in the subject petition.
WRIT PETITION NO.14919 of 2022
(ii) The facts in this case differ with regard to the unit in which the petitioner is providing manpower. The unit is COCO retial unit at Dobbaspet (Old). The facts compared to the facts in Writ 9 Petition No. 14925 of 2022 remain the same except the difference in dates of engagement, continuation of contract or otherwise. Hence, detailed facts are not gone into this case.
4. The learned senior counsel Sri K.Suman would contend with vehemence that the respondent/Corporation has deliberately issued the notification on 01-07-2022 completely changing the criteria for such selection. He would contend that if the criteria for selection is noticed, it is on the face of it arbitrary and issued only to take away the petitioners from competition and, therefore, submits that it is to be obliterated as being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is his emphatic submission that persons who are aged 50 to 60 years are being given 17 marks and persons who are aged 21 to 35 are being given 25 marks. There is no nexus with the object sought to be achieved, as it is for providing manpower at the retail outlets and therefore, higher the age should be preferred by granting more marks, but in the present case it is the other way round.
5. On the other hand, the learned senior counsel Sri Dhananjay V. Joshi representing the respondent/Corporation would 10 vehemently refute the submissions to contend that it is for the Corporation to draw up its eligibility criteria for outsourcing manpower to run COCO retail outlets. It is only these two petitioners who have called the action in question and in every other outlet the process is over and service providers in terms of the notification are also in place. He would contend that judicial review in cases of this kind where the employer fixes certain criteria for execution of a contract of manpower, it would not generally be interfered with and there is no arbitrariness, illegality or otherwise that can be discerned from the notification.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned senior counsel and have perused the material on record.
7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute and are, therefore, not reiterated. It is a matter of record that the petitioners in both these cases are operating manpower services at the respective COCO retail units of the Corporation - one at B.T.M.Layout II Stage and the other at Dobbaspet (old) in the National Highway. The manpower service comes to be granted to 11 these petitioners pursuant to a contract awarded and being renewed from time to time. The attempt that was made by issuance of a notification on 22-12-2020 by the Corporation seeking to select two other persons in both these cases becomes still born in the light of the interim order granted by this Court in Writ Petition No.11806 of 2021. During the pendency of the said writ petition the impugned advertisement comes about. The advertisement calling for applications from eligible persons to provide service for the Corporation Owned and Corporation Operated retail outlets. The advertisement directed down-loading of brochure and other guidelines from the website. The guidelines that are germane and have become the bone of contention are quoted hereunder for the purpose of ready reference:
"2. Eligibility Criteria:
a. Citizenship/ Indian Citizen. Resident of India Residential Status as per IT Rules.
b. Age Minimum Age 21 years and
maximum Age 60 years
c. Educational Minimum 10th pass (examina- tion
Qualification conducted by a recognized
Board/School)
d. Finance. Availability o0f Liquid assets (as
defined in clause 5.2) of minimum
Rs.15/- lakhs.
12
e. For Nominees of DGR The recommendations of
/Rajya Sainik Boards concerned department besides
(under para 1.2) other eligibility criteria.
- Applicant should meet all eligibility criteria as on the date of application.
- Only individuals are eligible to apply.
- Proof of age must be supported by copy of 10th standard Board Certificate/Secondary School Leaving Certificate/ Birth Certificate/Passport/Pan Card/Aadhar Card/ Voter Identity Card issued by Election Commission. No other proof will be admissible.
... ... ... ...
5. Selection Criteria and Guidelines for Evaluation:
5.1. The evaluation of applicants for Service Provider will be made on following parameters:
Parameter Maximum
Marks
i. Age (completed years)
- For age 21 years to 35 years - 25 marks
- or age above 35 years to 50 years - 21 25
marks.
- For age above 50 years to 60 years- 17
marks.
ii. Educational Qualification
- For 10th pass - 15 marks
- For 12th pass - 18 marks
- For Graduation - 21 marks
- For Post-Graduation, for Post-Graduation
in Management, Post-Graduation 25
Diploma in Management from IIM,
Graduation in Engineering, Graduation in Medicine, Graduation in Law, Chartered Accountant, Cast Accountant, Company Secretary - 25 marks iii. Financial capability 13 The maximum marks awarded is 30. The candidate will be awarded marks based on availability of "Liquid Assets" beyond Rs.15 lakhs and up to 30 Lakhs. For every increase of Rs.1 lakh (one lakh) beyond Rs.15 Lakhs, 2 marks will be awarded.
For Rs.15 marks - 0 marks.
For Rs.30 lakh - 30 marks 30(proportionate marks will be awarded based on Liquid Asset beyond Rs.15/- lakhs available with the candidate as on date of application) For eg.: for Rs.16.78 Lakhs, marks would be 3.56;
for Rs.20 lakhs marks would be 10 iv. Personal Interview Evaluation under this head will be made based on leading questions interview to assess the candidate's knowledge/skills on following parameters:
20
- Business environment (Labour Laws, ESIC, EPF, Shops & Establishment Act, Factories Act, Contract Labour (R&A)Act, Local Laws such as Trade/Municipal Laws, Safety and Environment and other statutory rules etc.) - 10 marks.
- Work experience, communication skill,
presentability etc. - 5 marks
- On customer service - 5 marks
Total 100
Minimum 60% marks will be required for eligibility and selection."
... ... ... ...
7. Selection Process:
7.1. Process of Interview & declaration of result:
A. Interview process
(i) All eligible applicants will be called for interview.
(ii) A written communication (thru registered letter/ speed post) will be sent to all the eligible candidates to report for interview for selection at a specified place on specified date 14 and time giving clear 15 days' time from the date of the letter.
(iii) Interview will be held by a committee of 3 officers of the concerned oil company.
(iv) Interview committee would conduct the interview through Video conference (VC), where in the applicants would be required to be present at the concerned oil company's office for appearing/ attending the VC interview.
(v) Only the applicant shall be allowed to remain present in the VC room during the interview process.
B. Declaration of Results. i) The result of the selection, after interview, shall be displayed
on the notice board of the venue immediately and at Company Office along with details of marks.
ii) Names of the top three candidates will be empaneled as first, second and third and shall also be displayed simultaneously on the notice board. If none of the candidate scores minimum qualifying marks, the result for the location will be declared as "No candidate found suitable".
7.2.1 Empanelment in case of tie:
a) In case of tie, a candidate getting higher marks in following two parameters, put together, will get preference over other/s.
S.No. Parameter
1. Capability to provide finance
2 Personal interview
b) In case of tie on parameters given above, the applicant who
is younger in age shall get preference over other/s. 15
c) In case of tie on parameters a & b (Finance, Interview & Age) above, the applicant who gets higher marks in Educational qualification shall get preference over other/s.
d) The above will also apply for selection of DGR nominees."
8. Eligibility criteria as found in Clause 2 supra would indicate that persons between ages 21 and 60 years are eligible to apply; Educational qualification would be a pass in the 10th standard; Liquid assets to be at the minimum of Rs.15 lakhs and only individuals are entitled to apply. The selection criteria at clause 5 amplifies the eligibility criteria by awarding marks for ages. If the applicant is between 21 and 35 years he would get 25 marks; if the applicant is between 35 and 50 years he would get 21 marks and if the applicant is between 50 and 60 years he would get 17 marks out of the maximum of 25 marks that could be awarded. In terms of the criteria of awarding marks what would unmistakably emerge is if the applicant is more than 50 years he is given less marks and it goes on in the decreasing order in terms of the order. Therefore, higher the age lesser the marks and lesser the age higher the marks.
16
9. Other criteria for awarding of marks is the educational qualification. Minimum qualification is set at 10th standard and here again the marks are divided according to the educational qualification. If it is a pass in 10th standard 15 marks, 12 standard 18 marks and graduation 21 marks. For financial capacity also marks are awarded and the personal interview is allotted 20 marks. The minimum of 60% of marks will be required for eligibility and selection. The selection process is dealt with under Clause 7 which would be the scrutiny of documents and interview to be conducted by the interview committee. This is the broad outline of the selection criteria in terms of the Notification issued on 01-07-2022.
10. The contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners is that there is no nexus with the object sought to be achieved by awarding marks qua age. Higher the age should have got higher marks, as the experienced person in the field would have been beneficial. Therefore, the issue would be whether the age criteria that is stipulated as a parameter for selection is arbitrary or otherwise.
17
11. To consider the said issue it would become germane to notice the law as laid down by the Apex Court concerning interference in matter of contract/tender. Contract in particular, as the case at hand concerns, the contract for providing manpower service at the outlets owned and run by the Corporation. The Apex Court right from the judgment in the case of TATA CELLULAR v. UNION OF INDIA1 has held as follows:
"94. The principles deducible from the above are:
(1) The modern trend points to judicial restraint in administrative action.
(2) The court does not sit as a court of appeal but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made.
(3) The court does not have the expertise to correct the administrative decision. If a review of the administrative decision is permitted it will be substituting its own decision, without the necessary expertise which itself may be fallible.
(4) The terms of the invitation to tender cannot be open to judicial scrutiny because the invitation to tender is in the realm of contract. Normally speaking, the decision to accept the tender or award the contract is reached by process of negotiations through several tiers. More often than not, such decisions are made qualitatively by experts.1
(1994) 6 SCC 651 18 (5) The Government must have freedom of contract. In other words, a fair play in the joints is a necessary concomitant for an administrative body functioning in an administrative sphere or quasi-administrative sphere. However, the decision must not only be tested by the application of Wednesbury principle of reasonableness (including its other facts pointed out above) but must be free from arbitrariness not affected by bias or actuated by mala fides.
(6) Quashing decisions may impose heavy administrative burden on the administration and lead to increased and unbudgeted expenditure.
Based on these principles we will examine the facts of this case since they commend to us as the correct principles."
(Emphasis supplied) A three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in the case of TATA CELLULAR (supra) deviated from the hitherto prevailing principle and observed that the modern trend points to judicial restraint in administrative action. The Court would not sit as a court of appeal but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made. Therefore, the examination would be the decision making process.
12. The Apex Court, later, in the case of MICHIGAN RUBBER (INDIA) LIMITED v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS2 has held as follows:
2
(2012)8 SCC 216 19 "23. From the above decisions, the following principles emerge:
(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 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 the 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 the 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
(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 a 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:
20
(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 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 the negative, then there should be no interference under Article 226."
... .... ...
35. As observed earlier, the Court would not normally interfere with the policy decision and in matters challenging the award of contract by the State or public authorities. In view of the above, the appellant has failed to establish that the same was contrary to public interest and beyond the pale of discrimination or unreasonable. We are satisfied that to have the best of the equipment for the vehicles, which ply on road carrying passengers, the 2nd respondent thought it fit that the criteria for applying for tender for procuring tyres should be at a high standard and thought it fit that only those manufacturers who satisfy the eligibility criteria should be permitted to participate in the tender. As noted in various decisions, the Government and their undertakings must have a free hand in setting terms of the tender and only if it is arbitrary, discriminatory, mala fide or actuated by bias, the courts would interfere. The courts cannot interfere with the terms of the tender prescribed by the Government because it feels that some other terms in the tender would have been fair, wiser or logical. In the case on hand, we have already noted that taking into account various aspects including the safety of the passengers and public interest, CMG consisting of experienced persons, revised the tender conditions. We are satisfied that the said Committee had discussed the subject in detail and for specifying these two conditions regarding pre-qualification criteria and the evaluation criteria. On perusal of all the materials, we are satisfied that the impugned conditions do not, in any way, could be classified as arbitrary, discriminatory or mala fide."
(Emphasis supplied) 21 The Apex Court clearly holds that 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. It is these that would entitle judicial review in a contractual matter. The afore- quoted clauses where the parameters are laid down by the Apex Court are essential ingredients with regard to judicial review in contractual matters.
13. The aforesaid judgments are followed by the Apex Court in the cases of SILPPI CONSTRUCTIONS CONTRACTORS v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER reported in (2020) 16 SCC 489, N.G. PROJECTS LIMITED v. VINOD KUMAR JAIN AND OTHERS reported in (2022)6 SCC 127 and UFLEX LIMITED v. GOVERNMENT TAMILNADU AND OTHERS reported in (2022) 1 SCC 165.
14. On a coalesce of the law as laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases, what would unmistakably emerge is, judicial review in contractual matters is restricted to decision making process, and not the decision itself and in the decision making 22 process the presence of bias, mala fides, arbitrariness and irrationality should be necessarily present and that is what is to be looked into while considering a challenge to any contract of the kind in the case at hand. Therefore, the consideration, in the case at hand, would be within the parameters laid down by the Apex Court in the afore-quoted judgments and on the touchstone of the principles so laid down therein.
15. If the facts obtaining in the case at hand and the contentions so advanced are considered on the touchstone of the judgments so rendered by the Apex Court, what would unmistakably emerge is, judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India concerning award of contract or a tender is limited. The Courts would be loathe to interfere, unless arbitrariness or unreasonableness is palpable and demonstrable. Drawing up of criteria of age for the purpose of selection of manpower of the COCO retail outlets of the Corporation cannot be termed to be either arbitrary or unreasonable merely because the contract would go away from the hands of the petitioners. It is for the Corporation to know its necessities and to draw up notification according to its 23 necessities. Unless the notification would violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India by being so arbitrary, judicial review of such action is impermissible.
16. Though the submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners would on the first blush seem that people who are aged above 50 years are wanting to be weeded out by the notification, but at a deeper delving, such acceptability gets diluted as the applicants age is what is taken as the criteria and not the age of all the persons whom the applicant would employ. Therefore, it cannot be said to be arbitrary merely because age is described to be the criteria for grant of marks. It is also germane to be noticed that the notification has been implemented insofar as other COCO retail outlets by awarding the contract of service to provide manpower of those units. It is only the petitioners in these petitions who seek to contend that there is no nexus with the object sought to be achieved. The object, according to the advertisement so issued by the Corporation, is awarding of contract for providing manpower service at the outlets run by it. It would not be within the scope of judicial review that every condition in the notification 24 for contract of manpower service will be scrutinized with a microscopic lens at the hands of this Court.
17. The Courts, as observed hereinabove, would be loathe to interfere, except in circumstances where the clauses of tender would be so arbitrary, unreasonable and brought out only to favour a particular tenderer. None of these are even remotely demonstrated in the cases at hand. Therefore, none of the submissions made by the learned senior counsel or the armory from his arsenal would lend any assistance to the case advanced for the petitioners. The very judgments noted (supra) carve out such exceptions for interference and further observe except on those exceptions the Court should not interfere. The exceptions so observed by the Apex Court in the cases cited (supra) do not exist in the cases at hand.
25
18. For the aforesaid reasons, finding no merit in the petitions they are accordingly dismissed. Costs made easy.
Pending applications also stand disposed, as a consequence.
Sd/-
JUDGE bkp CT:MJ