AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.K. Kannadasan, J.—The above appeals arise against the common order dated 1/8/2005 in W.P.Nos. 22410, 22426, 23818 and 24151
of 2005. The petitioners are aggrieved with the condition incorporated in Clause 3 of the tender notice, inviting tenders for granting license for
management of car park services at Kamaraj Domestic Terminal and Anna International Terminal at Chennai airport. The clause 3 of the tender
notice prescribes two conditions as eligibility criteria viz., (i). Parties having two years experience of managing car park with Government and other
departments as set out therein and (ii). Having a minimum annual turn over of Rs. 4.44 crores in similar business for which the business of tenders is
called for. The learned single Judge has quashed one of the eligibility criteria namely, the requirement of minimum annual turn over of Rs. 4.44
crores, against which the above appeals have been filed by the respondents in the writ petitions.
The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants contended that as per the principles laid down by the Apex Court in various decisions,
it cannot be construed that the condition as prescribed in the tender as invalid. It is further contended that the allegations as submitted by the writ
petitioners to the effect that the said clause is introduced with a view to eliminate several tenderers to ensure that the tender is awarded to any one
of the two tenderers who are presently carrying on the business in Chennai and Bombay, is without any basis. In this connection, the learned
counsel has furnished details of the other tenderers, who submitted the tender to substantiate that the said condition is not incorporated only to
favour those two individuals. It is further contended that the requirement of Rs. 4.44 crores as annual turnover is fixed considering the fact that the
reserve license fee is fixed at the rate of Rs. 37 lakhs per month. It is also contended that the very same clause which was challenged in an earlier
proceedings was upheld by the Division bench of this Court in W.A. No. 1498 of 2005.
The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents/writ petitioners contended that there is no nexus for the appellants to fix the minimum
annual turnover of Rs. 4.44 crores with regard to the object of selecting the tenderer for the management of car parking. He further contended that
whoever succeeds finally in the tender process, such person can necessarily employ ordinary persons to run the business, who do not require any
skill or otherwise and accordingly, the condition imposed is onerous. He further contended that if the said restriction is removed, the appellants
would always be benefited in terms of higher income. He also contended that the decision rendered in W.A. No. 1498 of 2005, cannot be relied
upon in deciding the issue involved in the present writ appeals, inasmuch as the said writ petition came to be filed by the petitioner therein, at the
instance of the persons who intended to snatch away the tender.
We have considered the rival contentions of the counsel appearing for the parties.
For the purpose of reference, the relevant condition as set out in Clause 3 of the tender notice is extracted hereunder:-
Having minimum Annual Turnover of Rs. 4.44 crores (Rupees four crores and forty four lakhs only).
Turnover means turnover from similar business for the relevant period for which experience has been claimed in terms of NIT i.e., the turn over
should be related to the business only for which the tender is called.
A perusal of the tender notice discloses that the minimum reserve license fee per month is fixed at Rs. 37 lakhs. If the said amount of Rs. 37 lakhs
per month is taken into account for a period of 12 months by multiplying Rs. 37 lakhs x 12, it worksout to Rs. 4.44 crores. Admittedly, the present
reserve license fee is fixed by increasing the said amount over and above the existing license fee. Under the said circumstances, We do not agree
with the contentions of the writ petitioners that the fixation of the annual turnover has no nexus at all in the tender process.
As regards the next contention urged by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners to the effect that the said condition is incorporated only
to benefit two tenderers, a perusal of the relevant statement containing list of tenderers fulfilling the condition of annual turn over of Rs. 4.44 crores,
discloses the participation of several tenderers. In the light of the above facts and in the absence of any other materials to substantiate the
contention urged on behalf of the writ petitioners, We do not agree with the above contention.
The Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 1498 of 2005 has upheld the order of the single judge, wherein the very same tender condition
was upheld, by placing reliance upon the principles laid down by the Apex Court. Though the contention made by the learned Senior Counsel for
the writ petitioners to the effect that the said writ petition itself came to be filed at the instigation of other participants, who intended to snatch away
the tender, the said contention is without any basis. Assuming without admitting that the said writ petition was filed at the instance of others, the fact
remains that the writ petition was dismissed at the admission stage itself and the very same writ petitioner had chosen to file an appeal before the
Division Bench and the said appeal was also dismissed after hearing both the sides. Further the Division Bench has dealt with the matter in the light
of the settled principles of the Apex Court and also by considering the fact that the turn over was fixed based on the minimum reserved license fee
of Rs. 37 lakhs p.m.
A further contention is urged on behalf of the writ petitioners that if the above condition is deleted, then there would be several participants in the
tenders, which in turn would generate more funds to the appellants. As far as this contention is concerned, since the award of contract is essentially
a commercial transaction as held by the Apex Court in a number of decisions, this Court is not empowered to go into the reasoning of the authority
in imposing the said condition. Similarly, the contention to the effect that the nature of business does not require any special knowledge for the
persons who are to be employed and as such the condition is unwarranted, cannot be gone into, as the scope of the judicial review in the matter of
Award of contract is very much limited, since it is a commercial decision on the part of the authorities.
The Apex Court in a decision reported in Global Energy Ltd. and Another Vs. Adani Exports Ltd. and Others, , has dealt with the condition
imposed in a tender requiring the party to deposit 30 lakhs as Earnest Money Deposit and held therein as follows:-
the terms of the invitation to tender are not open to judicial scrutiny and the Courts cannot whittle down the terms of the tender as they are in the
realm of contract unless they are wholly arbitrary, discriminatory or actuated by malice. This being the position of law, settled by a catena of
decisions of this Court, it is rather surprising that the learned Single Judge passed an interim direction on the very first day of admission hearing of
the writ petition and allowed the appellants to deposit the earnest money by furnishing a bank guarantee or a banker''s cheque till three days after
the actual date of opening of the tender. The order of the learned Single Judge being wholly illegal, was, therefore, rightly set aside by the Division
Bench.
The Apex court in another decision reported in Directorate of Education and Others Vs. Educomp Datamatics Ltd. and Others, has
elaborately dealt with the extent of the scope of judicial review as set out hereunder.
It is well settled now that the Courts can scrutinise the award of the contracts by the Government or its agencies in exercise of their powers of
judicial review to prevent arbitrariness or favouritism. However, there are inherent limitations in the exercise of the power of judicial review in such
matters. The point as to the extent of judicial review permissible in contractual matters while inviting bids by issuing tenders has been examined in
depth by this Court in Tata Cellular v. Union of India. After examining the entire case-law the following principles have been deduced. (SCC
pp.687 - 88, para 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 others 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.
In Air India Ltd. Vs. Cochin Int., Airport Ltd. and Others, , this Court observed:
The award of a contract, whether it is by a private party or by a public body or the State, is essentially a commercial transaction. In arriving at a
commercial decision considerations which are paramount are commercial considerations. The State can choose its own method to arrive at a
decision. It can fix its own terms of invitation to tender and that is not open to judicial scrutiny. It can enter into negotiations before finally deciding
to accept one of the offers made to it. Price need not always e the sole criterion for awarding a contract. It is free to grant any relaxation, for bona
fide reasons, if the tender conditions permit such a relaxation. It may not accept the offer even though it happens to be the highest or the lowest.
But the State, its Corporations, instrumentalities and agencies are bound to adhere to the norms, standards and procedure laid down by them and
cannot depart from them arbitrarily. Though that decision is not amenable to judicial review, the Court can examine the decision-making process
and interfere if it is found vitiated by mala fides, unreasonableness and arbitrariness.
This principle was again restated by this Court in Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. Commr., Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation. It was held
that the terms and conditions in the tender are prescribed by the Government bearing in mind the nature of contract and in such matters, the
authority calling for the tender is the best judge to prescribe the terms and conditions of the tender. It is not for the Courts to say whether the
conditions prescribed in the tender under consideration were better than the ones prescribed in the earlier tender invitations.
After observing as above, it is held therein that the Courts cannot strike down the terms of tender prescribed by the Government, because it
feels that some other terms in the tender would have been fair, wiser or logical. The Courts can interfere only if the policy decision is arbitrary,
discriminatory or mala fide.
The Apex Court in the decision referred to supra viz., Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd''s case, further observed as set out
hereunder:-
The law relating to award of a contract by the State, its corporations and bodies acting as instrumentalities and agencies of the Government has
been settled by the decision of this Court in Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar
Union (Regd.), Sindri and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, , Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Chandan Nagar, West Bengal Vs.
Dunlop India Ltd. and Others, , Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 S.C.C.651, Ramniklal N. Bhutta and another Vs. State of Maharashtra
and others, and Raunaq International Limited Vs. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. and Others, . The award of contract, whether it is by a private party or
by a public body or the State, is essentially a commercial transaction. In arriving at a commercial decision considerations which are paramount are
commercial considerations. The State can choose its own method to arrive at a decision. It can fix its own terms of invitation to tender and that is
not open to judicial scrutiny.....
In the light of the aforesaid decisions, undoubtedly, the appellants can choose its own method to arrive at a decision. Since the issue involved is
one of a commercial transactions, the appellants can arrive at a decision by following their own method as held in the aforesaid decision. Though
the decision is not amenable to judicial review, the Court can examine the decision making process and interfere if it is found vitiated by mala fides,
unreasonable or arbitrary, in the instant case, we do not see any reason to interfere with the decision making process on any one of the above
grounds.
For the reasons stated above, the orders passed in the writ petitions are set aside and the appeals are allowed. Consequently, the connected
W.A.M.P.Nos. 3141, 3143, 3144 and 3106 of 2005 are closed.