In Seth Industrial Corporation Vs. State, the hon'ble Rajasthan High Court while referring to earlier decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that the scope of judicial review in award of contracts has been defined by the Hon’ble Supreme court in various decisions on which the reliance has been placed by the petitioner as well as the respondents. The ultimate conclusion of the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is this that the High Court can interfere in the contractual matters when the action of the tendering authority is found to be malicious, discriminatory or the process adopted or decision made is so arbitrary and irrational that the court can say, the decision is such that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could have reached. It has also been held that where the public interest is affected, the court can also interfere in the contractual matters.
In Tata Cellular vs. Union of India, 1994, after examining the entire case-law the following principles have been deduced. (SCC pp.687-88, para 94)
“94. The principles deducible from the above are:
(1) The modern trend points to judicial restraint in administrative action. (2) The court does not sit as a court of appeal but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made.
(3) The court does not have the expertise to correct the administrative decision. 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.
(4) The terms of the invitation to tender cannot be open to judicial scrutiny because the invitation to tender is in the realm of contract. Normally speaking, the decision to accept the tender or award the contract is reached by process of negotiations through several tiers. More often than not, such decisions are made qualitatively by experts.
(5) The Government must have freedom of contract. In other words, a fair 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 principle of reasonableness (including its other facts pointed out above) but must be free from arbitrariness not affected by bias or actuated by mala fides.
(6) Quashing decisions may impose heavy administrative burden on the administration and lead to increased and unbudgeted expenditure.”
The Hon'ble High Court also said that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions has unequovocally held that the terms of invitation to tender cannot be open to judicial scrutiny because the invitation to tender is in realm of contract. It is also held that award of a contract is essentially a commercial transaction which must be determined on the basis of consideration that are relevant to such commercial decision.
In Tata Cellular vs. Union of India, 1994, after examining the entire case-law the following principles have been deduced. (SCC pp.687-88, para 94)
“94. The principles deducible from the above are:
(1) The modern trend points to judicial restraint in administrative action. (2) The court does not sit as a court of appeal but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made.
(3) The court does not have the expertise to correct the administrative decision. 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.
(4) The terms of the invitation to tender cannot be open to judicial scrutiny because the invitation to tender is in the realm of contract. Normally speaking, the decision to accept the tender or award the contract is reached by process of negotiations through several tiers. More often than not, such decisions are made qualitatively by experts.
(5) The Government must have freedom of contract. In other words, a fair 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 principle of reasonableness (including its other facts pointed out above) but must be free from arbitrariness not affected by bias or actuated by mala fides.
(6) Quashing decisions may impose heavy administrative burden on the administration and lead to increased and unbudgeted expenditure.”
The Hon'ble High Court also said that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions has unequovocally held that the terms of invitation to tender cannot be open to judicial scrutiny because the invitation to tender is in realm of contract. It is also held that award of a contract is essentially a commercial transaction which must be determined on the basis of consideration that are relevant to such commercial decision.
Comments
Post a Comment