Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.44 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Jagdish Mandal vs State Of Orissa & Ors on 11 December, 2006
54. As observed by this Court in Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa,
reported in (2007) 14 SCC 517, that while invoking power of judicial
review in matters as to tenders or award of contracts, certain special
features should be borne in mind that evaluations of tenders and
awarding of contracts are essentially commercial functions and
principles of equity and natural justice stay at a distance in such
matters. If the decision relating to award of contract is bona fide and
is in public interest, courts will not interfere by exercising powers of
Basavraj Page|33
::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2024 10:04:42 :::
10371.24-WP+.docx
judicial review even if a procedural aberration or error in assessment
or prejudice to a tenderer, is made out. Power of judicial review will
not be invoked to protect private interest at the cost of public interest,
or to decide contractual disputes."
The Silppi Constructions Contractors vs Union Of India on 21 June, 2019
"20. The essence of the law laid down in the judgments
referred to above is the exercise of restraint and caution; the
need for overwhelming public interest to justify judicial
intervention in matters of contract involving the State
instrumentalities; the courts should give way to the opinion of
the experts unless the decision is totally arbitrary or
unreasonable; the court does not sit like a court of appeal over
the appropriate authority; the court must realise that the
authority floating the tender is the best judge of its
requirements and, therefore, the court's interference should be
minimal. The authority which floats the contract or tender, and
has authored the tender documents is the best judge as to how
the documents have to be interpreted. If two interpretations
are possible then the interpretation of the author must be
accepted. The courts will only interfere to prevent arbitrariness,
irrationality, bias, mala fides or perversity. With this approach
in mind we shall deal with the present case."
Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd vs Commissioner Ulhasnagar Municipal ... on 8 May, 2000
19. He has further relied on the supreme court judgement in
the case of Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd. Vs.
Commissioner, Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation & Ors. 3
and submitted that ordinarily, the Courts would not, though
interfere with the matters of administrative action, however, if
the Government action is found to be arbitrary or discriminatory
or the policy adopted has no nexus with the object it seeks to
achieve or is found to be mala fide, interference by the Court in
administrative action is permissible. Paragraph 11 of the said
judgment relied on by Mr. Godbole is extracted hereinbelow:
Mahesh Chandra vs Regional Manager, U.P. Financial ... on 12 February, 1992
An action is mala fide if it is contrary to the
purpose for which it was authorised to be exercised. Dishonesty in
discharge of duty vitiates the action without anything more. An action is
bad even without proof of motive of dishonesty, if the authority is found
to have acted contrary to reason. [See : Mahesh Chandra v. Regional
Manager, U.P. Financial Corporation : (1993) 2 SCC 279]
Tata Cellular vs Union Of India on 26 July, 1994
68. The dictum as laid in Tata Cellular v. UOI reported in (1994) 6 SCC
651 is that the judicial power of review is exercised to rein in any
unbridled executive functioning. It was observed that the restraint has
two contemporary manifestations viz. one is the ambit of judicial
intervention and the other covers the scope of the court's ability to quash
an administrative decision on its merits. These restraints bear the
hallmarks of judicial control over administrative action. It was held that
the principle of judicial review is concerned with reviewing not the merits
of the decision in support of which the application for judicial review is
made, but the decision-making process itself. It was held that the
principle of judicial review would apply to the exercise of contractual
powers by the Government bodies in order to prevent arbitrariness or
favouritism. It was held that the duty of the court is to confine itself to
the question of legality and its concern should be whether a decision-
making authority exceeded its powers; whether it committed an error of
law or committed a breach of the rules of natural justice or reached a
decision which no reasonable tribunal would have reached or, abused its
powers. The grounds upon which an administrative action can be
subjected to judicial review are classified as illegality, irrationality and
procedural impropriety. In that very decision, while deducing the
principles from various cases referred, it was held that the modern trend
points to judicial restraint in administrative action; that the Court does
not sit as a court of appeal but merely reviews the manner in which the
decision was made; that the court does not have the expertise to correct
the administrative decision and if a review of the administrative decision
is permitted, it will be substituting its own decision, without the
necessary expertise which itself may be fallible; that the terms of the
invitation to tender cannot be open to judicial scrutiny because the
invitation to tender is in the realm of contract; and, that the government
must have freedom of contract, i.e. a free-play in the joints is a
necessary concomitant for an administrative body functioning in an
administrative sphere or quasi-administrative sphere. However, the
decision must not only be tested by the application of Wednesbury
Basavraj Page|26
::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2024 10:04:42 :::
10371.24-WP+.docx
principle of reasonableness, but must be free from arbitrariness not
affected by bias or actuated by mala fides. Moreover, quashing decisions
may impose heavy administrative burden on the administration and lead
to increased and unbudgeted expenditure.
Municipal Corporation vs Bvg India Limited on 27 March, 2018
18. In addition to the submissions made by Mr.Jagtiani,
1
decided on 14th March 2024 in wp No.2445 of 2024
Basavraj Page|14
::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2024 10:04:42 :::
10371.24-WP+.docx
Mr. Girish Godbole, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
petitioner in writ petition (ST) Nos.21119 of 2024 and 21115 of
2024, has submitted that it is settled law that if there are
essential conditions, the same must be adhered to; and further
that if there is no power of general relaxation, however, if a
deviation from a condition is made in relation to all the parties,
ordinarily power of relaxation may be held to be existing. To
advance this submission, Mr.Godbole has relied on paragraph 21
of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Municipal Corporation, Ujjain and Anr. Vs. BVG India Ltd.
& Ors.2, which is quoted hereunder:
M/S Michigan Rubber(I) Ltd vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 17 August, 2012
31. Thus, one of the considerations which ought to weigh
with the Court while considering the matters like the present
one, is as to whether the public interest is affected. Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. (supra), has
observed that the Court, before interfering in the tender or
contractual matters, should pose to itself not only a question as
to whether the process adopted or decision made by the
authorities was mala fide or is intended to favour to someone or
the process or decision made is arbitrary or irrational but it
should also pose a question whether the public interest is
affected. Thus, the public interest is one of the primary
considerations which should be taken into account by a Court
before interfering in a tender matter. Hon'ble Supreme Court in
paragraph 24 of the judgment in the case of Michigan Rubber
(India) Ltd. has categorically held that if answers to both the
Basavraj Page|29
::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2024 10:04:42 :::
10371.24-WP+.docx
questions as spelt out in the said paragraph are in negative,
then there should not be any interference in tender matters
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
M/S Agmatel India Private Limited vs M/S Resoursys Telecom on 31 January, 2022
39. Coming to the impugned tender condition No.PQ5, we Basavraj Page|37 ::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2024 10:04:42 ::: 10371.24-WP+.docx would only observe that it is a prequalifying condition and requires bidders to possess the experience of providing 300 labourers at 70 different locations. The task of supplying 1,70,82,086 food kits throughout the State in 35 districts and many taluka places is extremely large and if the State authorities, based on their past experience where they were flooded with complaints of untimely supply and not so smooth distribution of food kits, have prescribed such a condition, in our opinion, same is not liable to be interfered with, especially keeping in view the limited time available within which re-tender process would not be possible and hence, it would not be in public interest to interfere with such condition. Even otherwise, as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in various judgments including Agmatel India Private Limited Vs. Resoursys Telecom and Others8, author of the tender document is taken to be the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements. Thus, in the said view of the matter as well, we are unable to appreciate the prayer made by the petitioners to interfere in the impugned tender condition and the tender process, at this juncture.