Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

25. In Afcons Infrastructure Limited vs. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Limited and Anr., reported as (2016) 16 SCC 818, the Supreme Court had held as follows:-

"11. Recently, in Central Coalfields Ltd. v. SLL-SML (Joint Venture Consortium), (2016) 8 SCC 622, it was held by this Court, relying on a host of decisions that the decision-making process of the employer or owner of the project in accepting or rejecting the bid of a tenderer should not be interfered with. Interference is permissible only if the decision-making process is mala fide or is intended to favour someone. Similarly, the decision should not be interfered with unless the decision is so arbitrary or irrational that the Court could say that the decision is one which no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with law could have reached. In other words, the decision-making process or the decision should be perverse and not merely faulty or incorrect or erroneous. No such extreme case was made out by GYT-TPL JV in the High Court or before us.

13. In other words, a mere disagreement with the decision- making process or the decision of the administrative authority is no reason for a constitutional court to interfere. The threshold of mala fides, intention to favour someone or arbitrariness, irrationality or perversity must be met before the constitutional court interferes with the decision-making process or the decision." (emphasis added)

26. In West Bengal Central School Services Commission vs. Abdul Halim reported as (2019) 18 SCC 39, the Supreme Court was called upon to examine the scope of interference in an administrative action on the part of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and it was held thus:-

27. In Municipal Council, Neemuch Vs. Mahadeo Real Estate & Ors., reported as (2019) 10 SCC 738, following the law laid down in Tata Cellular (supra) and West Bengal Central School Services Commission (supra), the Supreme Court made the following the pertinent observations:-

"14. It could thus be seen that the scope of judicial review of an administrative action is very limited. Unless the Court comes to a conclusion that the decision-maker has not understood the law correctly that regulates his decision-making power or when it is found that the decision of the decision-maker is vitiated by irrationality and that too on the principle of "Wednesbury unreasonableness" or unless it is found that there has been a procedural impropriety in the decision-making process, it would not be permissible for the High Court to interfere in the decision-making process. It is also equally well settled that it is not permissible for the Court to examine the validity of the decision but this Court can examine only the correctness of the decision-making process.

28. A glance at the above decisions shows that in exercise of the jurisdiction vested in the court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the scope of judicial review in respect of administrative actions taken by the State, is quite limited. In matters of tender, the court is primarily concerned with the method adopted by the State for disposal of public property and it can examine whether the same has been fair and transparent and sufficient opportunity has been provided to all the stake holders to participate in the tender process. It is the decision making process that the court is expected to examine and not the ultimate decision arrived at by the State. Courts can however interfere if the tender process adopted or the decision taken by the respondent/authority is found to be arbitrary, irrational, unreasonable or mala fide.