Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. In support of his contentions, Sri Holla relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramanna_ Dayaram Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India ; Sterling Computers Ltd. v. M/s. M & N Publications Ltd. ; Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi ; Union of India Hindustan Development Corporation re-

ported in . He also relied upon the decisions in the case of Mahendra Labs Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka ; M/s. Dhar Cement Ltd. v. State of M.P. through Secretary, Ministry of Irrigation, Government of M.P., Bhopal ;

In the case of Sterling Computers Ltd. v. M/s. M. & N. Publications Ltd. (supra), the Supreme Court in paragraphs 12, 19 and 20 of the judgment has observed thus :

"12. At times it is said that public authorities must have the same liberty as they have in framing the policies, even while entering into contracts because many contracts amount to implementation or projection of policies of the Government. But it cannot be overlooked that unlike policies, contracts are legally binding commitments and they commit the authority which may be held to be a Slate within the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution in many cases for years. That is why the Courts have impressed that even in contractual matters the public authority should not 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 even in such matters they have to follow the norms recognised by Courts while dealing with public property. It is not possible for Courts to question and adjudicate every decision taken by an authority, because many of the Government undertakings which in due course have acquired the monopolist position in matters of sale and purchase of products and with so many ventures in hand, they can come out with a plea that it is not always possible to act like a quasi-judicial authority while awarding contracts. Under some special circumstances a discretion has to be conceded to the authorities who have to enter into contract giving them liberty to assess the overall situation for purpose of taking a decision as to whom the contract be awarded and at what terms. If the decisions have been taken in bona fide manner although not strictly following the norms laid down by the Courts, such decisions are upheld on the principle laid down by Justice Holmes, that Courts while judging the constitutional validity of executive decisions must grant certain measure of freedom of "play in the joints" to the executive.