AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Govindarajan, J.—The Petitioner has filed the above writ petition seeking to issue a writ of mandamus, directing the Respondents to issue tender forms to the Petitioner in respect of tender Ref. No. KKI/MM/6/0/01/ PR/1999-2000 for the transport of crude oil in Cauvery Project and receive the filled-in tender forms of the Petitioner, and to consider the same and pass orders.
The Petitioner claims that it is a transport contractor operating lorry transport from 1993 for transport of crude oil of the Respondents. The last of the contract between the Petitioner and the Respondents is dated 7.8.1997 for the period from 19.4.1997 to 18.4.1999. The 1st Respondent called for fresh sealed tender due on 5.3.1999 for a further period of 2 years from 19.4.1999. In pursuance of the tender notification and invitations, the Petitioner in his letter dated 15.2.1999, requested the 1st Respondent to supply the tender documents so as to enable the Petitioner to participate in the tender proceedings. After getting tender documents, the Petitioner submitted the same on 4.3.1999.
According to the Petitioner, after such calling for tender, the 1st Respondent orally contacted six contractors of his choice and supplied fresh tender schedules to them for certain contracts. But they did not contact the Petitioner nor supplied forms to the Petitioner for certain contracts. The Petitioner sent a letter dated 10.4.1999 to the 1st Respondent requesting for issue of tender forms. The 1st Respondent did not respond to the
same. Again the Petitioner sent a letter dated 12.4.1999 to the 2nd Respondent by FAX with the same request. Even from the 2nd Respondent the Petitioner did not receive any information., So, the Petitioner has approached this Court with the abovesaid prayer.
The Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that though the Petitioner was given contract for the earlier period and he submitted the tender for long term contract, the Respondent cannot choose the persons for issuing certain other contracts. According to the Learned Senior Counsel, the Respondent being a public authority cannot pick and choose the persons to allow certain contracts.
The Learned Counsel for the Respondents on the basis of the counter filed by the Chief Manager of the 1st Respondent has submitted that after receipt of the tenders the Tender Committee considered the same elaborately and found that since no bidder has met the B.B.C. requirements, rejected all the bids and recommended a Board of Officers towards contract for six months period to have continuity of service beyond 18.4.1999 on which date the present contract expires. With respect to the Petitioner the Tender Committee recommended that since the possibilities of acceptance of recommendations of the Vigilance Department of O.N.G.C. to terminate the contract of M/s. Jayavani Transport, Chennai, not to consider its name as a precautionary measure. This conclusion was arrived at on the basis that there are cases against the Petitioner. Thereafter the Board decided to issue tender documents to the contractors. Against short-listed nine parties, only 3 tenders were quoted. Against 8 tender documents six bids were received before the due dates. After considering the technical bids, list was taken down to three bidders namely Mahesh Transport, M/s.R.V.N. Agencies, and M/s. Oriental Transport. The bids of three bidders had been opened on 12.4.1999. Since their offers were very much higher than the existing rates, they were asked to come back for further negotiation. Though M/s. Oriental Transport has submitted the best rates at 2.50 per ml per km. they could not negotiate further since their representative was not authorised to do so. After prolonged discussion with M/s. Mahesh Transport and R.V.N. Agencies, the Respondents had arrived at the rate of Rs. 2.49 (sic) per KL per km. Once again they were called for further deliberation at Karaikal on 14.4.1999 and on that date they submitted their revised rate at Rs. 2.25 (sic) per KL per km.
So the contract was awarded to them by placing a letter of intent on 15.4.1999.
It is specific case of the Respondents that if, at this stage the contract is stalled, it would result only in loss to the Respondent-Corporation, as they are supplying Crude Oil to the common man as well as to the industries all over the country.
From the above said facts, it is very clear that the Respondents have given valid reasons for not giving tender forms for short-term contract to the Petitioner. Further, the proceedings of the Respondents in awarding the contract had been carried out properly. When the Respondents have come forward with specific reasons for not supplying the tender forms for short term contract, this Court cannot sit on appeal on those reasons. As held by the Apex Court in Raunaq International Limited Vs. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. and Others, , relying on the decision in Tata Cellular Vs.
Union of India, , it has been observed as follows:
In Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India, , this Court again examined the scope of judicial review in the case of a tender awarded by a public authority for carrying out certain work. This Court acknowledged that the principles of judicial review can apply to the exercise of contractual powers by Government Bodies in order to prevent arbitrariness or favouritism. However, there are inherent limitations in the exercise of that power of judicial review. The Court also observed that the right to choose cannot be considered as an arbitrary power. Of course, if this power is exercised for any collateral purpose, the exercise of the power will be struck down, ''judicial quest in administrative matters has been to find the right balance between the administrative discretion to decide matters and the need to remedy any unfairness. Such an unfairness is set right by judicial review. After examining a number of authorities, the court concluded (at page 687) as follows:
(1) The modern trend points to judicial restraining 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 administrative decisions. If a review of the administrative decision is permitted it will be substituting its own decision, without the necessary expertise, which itself maybe 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.
(5) The Government must have freedom of contract; in other words, a fairplay in the joints is a necessary concomitant for an administrative Body functioning is an administrative or quasi-administrative sphere. However, the decision can be tested by the application of the "Wednesbury Principle" or reasonableness and the decision should be free from arbitrariness, not affected by bias or actuated by mala fides.
(6) Quashing decision may impose heavy administrative burden on the administration and lead to increased and unbudgeted expenditure.
The said decision will squarely apply to the facts of the present case. It cannot be said that the Respondents have awarded short term contract by pick and choose. They have adopted a procedure before awarding contract to M/s. Mahesh Transport and M/s. R.V.N. Agencies. The Petitioner has no legal right to compel the Respondents to award the contract to it. Moreover, as stated in the counter, the contract has already been awarded and the contractor has also started functioning on the basis of the contract.
In view of the above, I do not find any merits in this writ petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P. Nos. 9873 to 9875 of 1999 are closed.