Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

28. In Sterling Computers Ltd., Vs. M/s. M & N Publications Ltd & Ors,. AIR 1996 SC 51 the Supreme Court observed as follows:-

"While exercising the power of judicial review, in respect of contracts entered into on behalf of the State, the Court is concerned primarily as to whether there has been any infirmity in the "decision making process".

...............................................

..............................................

By way of judicial review the Court cannot examine the details of the terms of the contract which have been entered into by the public bodies or the State. Courts have inherent limitations on the scope of any such enquiry."

42. A similar view has been reiterated in M. P. Oil Extraction & Anr. Vs. State of M.P. & Ors., (1997) 7 SCC 592.

43. In Sterling Computers Ltd. Vs. M/s. M & N Publications Ltd., AIR 1996 SC 51, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-

"It is not possible for Courts to question and adjudicate every decision taken by an authority, because many of the Government Undertakings which in due course have acquired the monopolist position in matters of sale and purchase of products and with so many ventures in hand, they can come out with a plea that it is not always possible to act like a quasi-judicial authority while awarding contracts. Under some special circumstances a discretion has to be conceded to the authorities who have to enter into contract giving them liberty to assess the overall situation for purpose of taking a decision as to whom the contract be awarded and at what terms. If the decisions have been taken in bona fide manner although not strictly following the norms laid down by the Courts, such decisions are upheld on the principle laid down by Justice Holmes, that Courts while judging the constitutional validity of executive decisions must grant certain measure of freedom of play in the joints to the executive........ On the basis of those judgments it cannot be urged that this Court has left to the option of the authorities concerned whether to invite tenders or not according to their own discretion and to award contracts ignoring the procedures which are basic in nature, taking into account factors which are not only irrelevant but detrimental to the public interest."

129. In Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of U.P. MANU/SC/0504/1991MANU/SC/0504/1991 : AIR 1991 SC 537 , the Court in paragraph 22 pointed out that the private parties are concerned only with their personal interest but the public authority are expected to act for public good and in public interest. The impact of every action is also on public interest. It imposes public law obligation and impress with that character, the contracts made by the State or its instrumentality. "It is a different matter that the scope of judicial review in respect of disputes falling within the domain of contractual obligations may be more limited and in doubtful cases the parties may be relegated to the adjudication of their rights by resort to remedies provided for adjudication of purely contractual disputes. However, to the extent, challenge is made on the ground of violation of Article 14 by alleging that the impugned act is arbitrary, unfair or unreasonable, the fact that the dispute also falls within the domain of contractual obligations would not relieve the State of its obligation to comply with the basic requirements of Article 14. To this extent, the obligation is of a public character invariably in every case irrespective of there being any other right or obligation in addition thereto. An additional contractual obligation cannot divest the claimant of the guarantee under Article 14 of non-arbitrariness at the hands of the State in any of its actions". In Food Corporation of India v. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries MANU/SC/0257/ 1993MANU/SC/ 0257/1993: AIR1993SC1601 , this Court held that the mere reasonable or legitimate expectation of a citizen may not by 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". In Sterling Computers Ltd. v. M & N Publications Ltd. MANU/SC/0439 /1993MANU/SC/0439/1993 : AIR 1996 SC 51 , it was held that even in commercial contracts where there is a public element, it is necessary that relevant considerations are taken into account and the irrelevant consideration discarded. In Union of India v. M/s. Graphic Industries Co., MANU/SC/0086/1995MANU/SC/0086/1995 : (1994) 5 SCC 398: 1994 AIR SCW 4617), this Court held that even in contractual matters public authorities have to act fairly; and if they fail to do so approach under Article 226 would always be permissible because that would amount to 'violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. The ratio in General Assurance Society Ltd. v. Chandumull Jain, (1966) 3 SCR 500: (MANU/SC /0180/1966MANU/SC/0180/1966 : AIR 1966 SC 1644), relied on by the appellants that tests laid therein to construe the terms of insurance contracts bears no relevance to determine the constitutional conscience of the appellant in fixing the terms and conditions and of their justness and fairness on the touchstone of public element. The arms of the High Court is not shackled with technical rules or of Procedure. The actions of the State, its instrumentality, any public authority or person whose actions bear insignia of public law element or public character are amendable to judicial review and the validity of such an action would be tested on the anvil of Article 14.