Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

[36] At this stage, we may refer to the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court which has been relied by the learned Government Pleader in the case of Afcons Infrastructure Limited versus Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Limited and another reported in (2016) 16 SCC 818 and the concept of judicial review in respect of tender matters, whereunder certain propositions have been indicated by Hon'ble Apex Court and we deem it proper to quote hereunder:-

"11. Recently, in Central Coalfields Ltd. v. SLL-SML (Joint Venture Consortium)[2] it was held by this Court, relying on a host of decisions that the decision making process of C/SCA/20436/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2022 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 C/SCA/20436/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2022 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.

"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.

[38] From the aforesaid authoritative principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is indicative of the fact that the authority inviting the bids is to be primarily satisfied that the bidder satisfies the tender condition. The Courts would not sit in the armchair of the tender inviting authority to evaluate the decision so arrived at by authority inviting the bids. If the decision making process is flawed, this Court in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction would interfere. However, if the decision is flawed, the interference is not called for in tender matters. In the instant case, the State on the ground of Zero Tolerance Policy has resolved to reject the bid of the petitioner on the ground of petitioner having been blacklisted. As to why the State should adopt Zero Tolerance Policy cannot be subject to judicial scrutiny when the State is asserting that the health of the general public is of paramount importance and there cannot C/SCA/20436/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2022 be any compromise in the quality of tablets or drugs being administered to the general public and in this process if it arrives at a conclusion that on account of petitioner having been blacklisted, it would still refuse to accept the bid of the petitioner though it is L1, on the ground of financial gain to the State, such offer from the petitioner cannot be accepted that too at the cost of the common man. Mere acceptance of the bid of the petitioner earlier would not justify the illegality being perpetrated. Hence, we are of the considered view that petitioner has not made out any case calling for interference. [39] Under the aforementioned circumstances, we are of the view that judgments relied upon by Mr. Shalin Mehta, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners would not come to his rescue and apparently not attracted or of any assistance to the petitioners' stand for the simple reason that background of facts is altogether different then what is prevailing on hand and we have discussed already the applicability of the relevant condition which is literally and meaningfully it is applied to the case on hand.