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:-

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.

45. Again, in an earlier decision in Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa reported as (2007) 14 SCC 517, the Supreme Court has emphasized that the power of judicial review ought not be invoked to extend protection to private interest at the cost of public interest in the following words:-

"22. Judicial review of administrative action is intended to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, bias and mala fides. Its purpose is to check whether choice or decision is made "lawfully" and not to check whether choice or decision is "sound". When the power of judicial review is invoked in matters relating to tenders or award of contracts, certain special features should be borne in mind. A contract is a commercial transaction. Evaluating tenders and awarding contracts are essentially commercial functions. Principles of equity and natural justice stay at a distance. If the decision relating to award of contract is bona fide and is in public interest, courts will not, in exercise of power of judicial review, interfere even if a procedural aberration or error in assessment or prejudice to a tenderer, is made out. The power of judicial review will not be permitted to be invoked to protect private interest at the cost of public interest, or to decide contractual disputes. The tenderer or contractor with a grievance can always seek damages in a civil court. Attempts by unsuccessful tenderers with imaginary grievances, wounded pride and business rivalry, to make mountains out of molehills of some technical/procedural violation or some prejudice to self, and persuade courts to interfere by exercising power of judicial review, should be resisted. Such interferences, either interim or final, may hold up public works for years, or delay relief and succour to thousands and millions and may increase the project cost manifold........" (emphasis added)