Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. In support of the submission, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on different judgments of the Hon‟ble Apex Court such as City Industrial Development Corporation through its Managing Director Vs. Platinum Entertainment & Ors. reported in 2015 (1) SCC 558 Para-37, 38, 39, Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. Principal Secretary & Ors. reported in 2014 (9) SCC 516, Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. Principal Secretary & Ors. reported in 2014(9) SCC 614, Centre for Public Interest Litigation & Or.s Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in 2012 (3) SCC 1, Bharti Airtel Limited Vs. Union of India reported in 2015 (12) SCC 1 Para-42, 43, Humanity & Anr. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. reported in 2011 (6) SCC 125, Common Cause, a Registered Society Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in 1996(6) SCC 530, Sterling Computers Limited Vs. M/s M & N Publications Patna High Court CWJC No.350 of 2017 dt.26-02-2018 8 Limited & Ors. reported in 1993 (1) SCC 445 para 14, 26 and 13.

37. The Hon‟ble Apex Court was considering the scope Patna High Court CWJC No.350 of 2017 dt.26-02-2018 48 and limit of judicial review in the case of Sterling Computers Limited Vs. M/s M&N Publications Limited & Ors. reported in (1993) 1 SCC 445. The Court has held that public authority must have liberty in framing the policy, even while entering into contracts because many contracts amount to implementation or projection of policies of the Government. Even in contractual matter, the public authority has not and cannot have unfettered discretion. In contracts having commercial element, some more discretion has to be conceded to the authorities so that they may enter into contracts with persons, keeping an eye on the augmentation of the revenue but has to follow the norms recognized by the Court. While dealing with the public policy, it is not possible for the Court to question or attack every decision taken by the authority as because the Government undertaking in due course have acquired the monopolist position in the matter of sale and purchase of products and in certain situations, discretion has to be conceded to the authorities who has to enter into the contract and liberty has to be given to assess overall situation for the purpose of taking decision as to whom the contract be awarded and at what terms. The Court said that there should be freedom of "play in the joints" to the executive. While exercising judicial review, the Court does not act as a court of appeal while examining the administrative decision and to record findings whether such decision could have been taken or otherwise in Patna High Court CWJC No.350 of 2017 dt.26-02-2018 49 the facts and circumstances of the case. The doctrine that power must be exercised reasonably has to be reconciled with the no less important doctrine that the court must not usurp the discretion of the public authority and the authorities are free to exercise the discretion reasonably and properly. No doubt the scope of judicial review is to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment, and not to ensure that the authority, after according fair treatment, reaches on a matter which it is authorized or enjoined by law to decide for itself a conclusion which is correct in the eyes of law. Under judicial review, the Court as an appellate Authority cannot examine the details of the terms of the contract which have been entered into by the public bodies of the State. The Court must ensure that the authority has exercised the power properly, reasonably and rationally in public interest free from biasness and discrimination. It is relevant to quote paragraph nos. 12, 13 and 14 of the aforesaid judgment which reads as follows:-