Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

64.3. It is not open to the court to independently evaluate the technical bids and financial bids of the parties as an appellate authority for coming to its conclusion inasmuch as unless the thresholds of mala fides, intention to favour someone or bias, arbitrariness, irrationality or perversity are met, where a decision is taken purely on public interest, the court ordinarily should exercise judicial restraint."

32. Similarly, in the case of Consortium of Titagarh Firema Adler S.P.A. -Titagarh Wagons Ltd. Vs. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., reported in (2017) 7 SCC 486, has held as under:

"30. Before we proceed to deal with the concept of single entity and the discretion used by the 1st respondent, we intend to deal with role of the court when the eligibility criteria is required to be scanned and perceived by the court. In Montecarlo Ltd, the Court referred to Tata Cellular wherein certain principles, namely, the modern trend pointing to judicial restraint on administrative action; the role of the court is only to review the manner in which the decision has been taken; the lack of expertise on the part of the court to correct the administrative decision; the conferment of freedom of contract on the government which recognises a fair play in the joints as a necessary concomitant for an administrative body functioning in an administrative sphere or quasi-administrative sphere, were laid down. It was also stated in the said case that the administrative decision must not only be tested by the application of Wednesbury principle of reasonableness but also must be free from arbitrariness not affected by bias or actuated by mala fides. The two- Judge Bench took note of the fact that in Jagdish Mandal it has been held that, (SCC p. 531, para 22) 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 decisions in Master Marine Services (P) Ltd. v. Metcalfe & Hodgkinson (P) Ltd., B.S.N. Joshi & Sons Ltd. v. Nair Coal Services Ltd. and Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. have been referred to. The Court quoted a passage from Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. wherein the principle that interpretation placed to appreciate the tender requirements and to interpret the documents by owner or employer unless mala fide or perverse in understanding or appreciation is reflected, the constitutional courts should not interfere. It has also been observed in the said case that it is possible that the owner or employer of a project may give an interpretation to the tender documents that is not acceptable to the constitutional courts but that by itself is not a reason for interfering with the interpretation given. After referring to the said authority, it has been ruled thus:

33. Similarly, in the case of JSW Infrastructure Limited and another Vs. Kakinada Seaports Limited and others, reported in (2017) 4 SCC 170, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, in contractual matters, the Writ Courts should not interfere unless the decision taken is totally arbitrary, perverse or malafide. Paragraph nos. 8, 9 & 10 of the said judgment are reproduced below:

"8. We may also add that the law is well settled that superior courts while exercising their power of judicial review must act with restraint while dealing with contractual matters. A three- Judge Bench of this Court in Tata Cellular v. Union of India held that:
(i) there should be judicial restraint in review of administrative action;
(ii) the court should not act like court of appeal; it cannot review the decision but can only review the decision-making process;
(iii) the court does not usually have the necessary expertise to correct such technical decisions;
(iv) the employer must have play in the joints i.e. necessary freedom to take administrative decisions within certain boundaries.