1 gmmE gEg‘ggH URT OF JUDICATUkE AT BILASPUR N THE I HIGH CO £CHHATTISGARH l w. P. Nam grOF 2005 Surgi Aid Pharmaa, Health Care Equipment,0pposite Couectorate, Town Clock, Hall No.1, 2m Floor, LELIEO‘NEB G. El. Road, Raipur through its Proprietor Krishan Vibhuti Anand, S/o Shri A. K. Anand, aged about 38 years, Tahsil & District Raipur [Chattisgarh] VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh . through Secretary, Department of Health & Family Welfare, Mantralaya, Raipur [Chhattisgarh] RESPOND N bg Dau Kalyan Sihgh Bhawan, at; »‘§Q/ ; é . irector, Directorate of Health Services, Chhattisgarh, Raipur e.hin§!,.l?.|a..ntra|,_a,ya, RaiPuLKCGl “am “eaiéailwenaxas‘. .r ‘f F > K/ §a1x>aar €hcm3c, ma’gi‘gafgi Eist. Raipur(-Q1hatti8garh) ' wivit‘ron Mei ea: éyéitéris yiEva‘té i Lté. 15th fatteet. Abhit§naptxan,. channai»’ soooaawamilnaaul $g§§g§g§ggg1cal mgujgment co. rot. Lté. o..€,r!aus mas, mm... 11mm : Bagrea gamiaxieea,’ 3%: gity Room» mhotapara, §¥§Ql$£matt$a§atng W act aways”; mined ’56, munltyvgwtte, mam: arivmja‘aasrg, Nw‘wLnooss allmorsvlimcal V'Eygtgna _(P) Iota. swam: sectmuzw. wri‘mial Icaé. ’ahanaitérht mm . ' ‘- » We“; maeawmwu emit i ’7 7 iii gapurtmlh attiagarh) a B ~ > , w—wla-«u ”l 7 f§EJWStiiiasi§i xa‘rm RM-_WW&&$§£W§ ’ 1‘1; ’m‘éa’i‘ u‘éai’e" xgmmént %hé§ti§§éih} & aectmnxa I $1ahwana ¥hap$l {liaéhya Pratap Fraé‘e‘éh} N&gar. " %ne-$I; I ;_. N cm”; ‘My— “ ed, most respectfuuy submits as under: above—nam I A - r u - ‘itioner, HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH} wri‘r Pgm'ion N¢.127$ of 2mm Surgi Aid Pharmm w - Versus - 5mm of Chha‘msgarh & orhers P05T FOR ORDER ON 137-" JU£¥ 2005 ./ / 5d]- L.C. Bhadoo Judge 12-7-2005 ir‘ iriri ha / HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR {CHHATTISGARHg BEFORE HON'BLE MR. LC. BHADOO J. O R D E R (Passed on 13m Juiy, 2005) 1. The pefi’rioner, who is engaged in The business of seliing and suppiying medical equipmem‘s To The $over'nmen'r bepar‘TmenTg, par’ricuiarly, The HeaHh Department has preferred +his wri'r pe+i+ion ques1'ioning fhe iegaiify and propriety of The decision of responden? No.3 whereby The ye‘ri‘i‘ioner’s fender has been rejecfed in respec‘i' of $9 Hams and responden'r No.2 eccepfed fhe fenders of respondenfs No.3, 4, 8 and ofher respondeni‘s in respec'i' of near abouT 22 ifems. 2. Brief fads, as sef ou'i’ in The pe‘i‘ifion, Ieeding ‘i‘o filing of fhis wri‘i' pe‘ii‘iion are Thai responden‘i No.2 issued N.I.T. on 22-7-2004 for purchase of 78 medicai equipmen'rs. The said N.I.T. was published in 14w newspaper namely “Indian Express" on 30-7-2004 and again i‘r was published in The Hindi newspaper ‘Navbhara?’ on 9-8-2004 whereby Wri‘r ?e1'i1'ion No.1275 of 2005 k ; Surgi Aid Pharmaa - Versus - S+nfe of Chhn‘Hisgarh & oHurs Present - Shri Manindm Shrivas‘fava, 5r. Advoca‘l'e wi‘rh 5PM Amri’ro DasJ Advocafe: For The peTi‘rioner. 5hri Pmshuni' Mishm, Addl. A. 6.: For msponden‘rs No.1 & 2. KT Smi‘. Fouzin Mirzn, Advoca‘l’e: For respondenf No.3. Shri P. Diwakar, 5r. Advoca're wi'rh S'nr‘i Kuna! Des, Advamfe: For responden'r N¢.4. Shri BP. Sharma, Advoca‘rz: For responden'i's No.6 & 9. Shri sanjay K. Agrawai, Advocate: For responden'rs No.7 ¢§ 10. ‘Shr’i Ranbir‘ Singh Markus, Advocq‘l'e: For responden‘r No.8. feners were invifed 'From Au‘l'horized Dis+ribu+ors/Impor+ers for supply of medicai equipmen'rs. The lcs‘r dafe for submission of fhe fender was inH'iaHy 6-9-2004, which was extended 1‘0 30-9-2004 by advcr‘fisemen'f da+ed Q-g—ZOM. 1 , Fur‘mer case of The pe‘rifioner is 'i’ha‘i’ in response 1'0 The said N.I.T. he submi‘i‘fed Tender documem‘s in respecf 0f uii The 78 ifems. Thar-gaffer, responden‘l‘ au+hnri+i¢s proceeded +0 open Pre-quaiificd+ion bids on 1-10-2004 a? abouT 12 p‘m. in The Office of respondem‘ No.2.. Affer opening of Pre-qualificafion ' bid, The Purchase Commii'l'ee comprising 0‘? 10 members scrufinized The deTaiis and documenTs forming parT of Pre-qualificaTion bids. The CommiTTee informed ThaT The names of qualified Tenderer‘s in Pre-quaiificaTion bid would be subsequen‘iiy informed in wriTing. On ThaT day everyThing of The peTiTioner‘s Pre-quaiificoTion bid was found in order buT wiTh regard To 4-5 Tenderers iT was Transpir'ed ThaT There were cer‘i’ain irreguinriTies and defecTs in Their documem's. . Vide ieTTer dqTed 12-10—2004 (Annexure—P/5) The peTiTioner was informed by respondenT No.2 Tho‘i’ The Technicai bid is proposed To be opened on 14-10—2004. This being The second sTage of finoiizaTion of Tender, similar noTices were issued To é oTher Tenderers, Thus, iT became clear ThaT Pre-qualificaTion bids of only 7 Tenderers were found To be in order, Therefore, 3T was decided To open The Technicui bids of all The 7 successful Tenderers including The pe‘i'i'i'ioner. However, on 14- 10:2004 when The peTiTioner oTTended The meeTing, he was surprised To know from The CommiTTee ThoT The CommiTTee has some doubi's wiTh regard To cerToin documenTs submiTTed by The peTiTioner. They were 18 in number. This was compleTe deporTure from The laid down procedure as ali These documenTs were Thoroughiy seen and afTer full saTisfocTion, They arrived oT a decision To open Pre-quaiificoTion bids. 18 numbers of documenTs in respecT of which doubTs were raised were parT of pre-quaiificaTion and once Pre-quaiifimTion found was over, iT d , ‘\.=‘ 5!). Q‘ was wholly arbi'rmry and unreasonable on fhe par? o‘F fhe Purchase Commi‘rfee 1'0 suddenly rake up the same issue again. In The minufes of meefing dafed 14-10-2004 n0 objzcfion was 1'aken wifh regard fol following aspects: (i) fhc agency agreemen'l' does no'l' bear any da'fe and iTem; (ii) The ISO ce‘rTificaTes did not con‘min items; and (iii) aui'hor-izai'ion le'H'ers do no'r baar dafes. Affer opening of The fechnical bid of The peTiTioner' in respecT af 78 iTems, no objecTion was raised nor The peTiTioner was informed regarding any defecT or shor‘rcoming in any of The deTaiI and documenT of The/Technical bid. The Tenderers were informed ThaT now Their Technical bids would be forwarded TO The Technical CammiTTee as per The procedure preseribed. . On 14-10-2004 The exercise underTaken by The Purchase CommiTTee was noT wiTh regard To Technicai bid buT iT was an exercise To dig up some kind of defecTs or shorTeorning in pre~qualificaTion documenTs of The peTiTioner. On 5-11-2004, The peTiTioner was shocked To learn ThaT while sending The Technical bids of The Tenderers including The peTiTioner, The Technical bid of The peTiTioner in respecT of abouT 15 iTems was forwarded To The Technical CommiTTee by The Purchase CommiTTee and Technical bids of The peTiTioner in respecT of remaining iTems were wiThheld. Therefore, The‘ peTiTioner made severai represenTaTions againsT such acTion of The Technical CommiTTee from 5-11—2004 Tc 10—11—2004 (Annexure—P/7). The peTiTioner again received ieTTer on 17-11-2004 by which iT was informed ThaT The Purchase CommiT’Tee on 17-11-2004 iTself proposes anoTher round of exercise of scruTiny of Pre-qualifieaTion bid and The meeTing was fixed on The same day aT 5 pm in The evening. IT became very clear ThaT, Time and again, The exercise of scruTiny, re-scruTiny and Third round of scruTiny of Pre-qualificaTion bid is being underTaken To somehow dig ouT any irregulariTy or defecT in The peTiTionerfs documenTs so ThaT The peTiTioner's Technical bid in respecT of all The 78 iTems may noT Take place. In The meeTing held on 17-11-2004 The peTiTioner was surprised ’ ] @7 and shocked +0 see fha'r suddenly 4 1'enderer's were presenf whose Pre- qualifimfion bids were no? accepfed emier nor fheir' names announced on 14-10-2004 and fhey were nm‘ even culled in fhe meafing dufed 14- 10—2004 by issuing no+ice simiiar- +9 fhe no+ic¢ ain‘t-ed 12-10-2004 issued To The DeTiTianer. On 17-11-2004, The Purchase Commi‘r‘ree again re- opened fhe Pre-qualificm'ion bid scru‘riny exercise‘ On ‘Hm‘l' day some objecfions were raised wi‘rh regard To Pre—qua!ifica1‘ion documen'rs submi'rred by The pe?i"rioner' by referring some of The documen‘rs like 15.0. cer'rificafes, Agency agreement au'rhoriza'rion Ie'H‘ers efc, which were con'rmry Tc The procedure prescribed. . IT was so noTed by The peTiTioner in his own handwriTing in The proceedings of The Purchase Commi‘f'i’ee dafed 17-11-2004. The " pe'fi'i'ioner again made a represenfo‘rion on 2-12-2004 and vide ie‘H'er defed 20-12-2004 'i’he pe'i'i'i’ioner was informed regarding ‘i'he mee'i'ing scheduled +0 be heid on 22-12-2004 for opening of 'i'he price bids. Affer receiving This ’ ieTTer, The petifioner again submmed a represeni'a'iion +ha+ price bids should no? be opened 1'ill ihe decision of represen‘ra‘rions submi‘ii'ed by The pe‘iii'ioner. However, wiThou-i' considering fhe pe‘l‘i’l’ioner's represen'mfions The price bids were opened on 22-12-2004 and fhe pe‘rii-ioner found fha‘i his price bid has been opened in respecT of only A12 iTems and for remaining i'rems price bid was no'l' opened Vide le'Her da‘i'ed 4-1-2005 'l'l-ie pefi‘i'ioner was required ‘l’o make demonsi’rai‘ion in respeci‘ of 'i'he ifems for which he was found L-l. The price bids of oTher fenderers namely respondenfs No.3 To 11 were opened. The pefifioner can defini‘l'ely soy fha‘i' ‘i'he rufes quo‘l'ed by The peTiTioner are lower Than The roTes quoTed by The aforesaid Tenderers in respecT of all The remaining iTems. Finally a represenTaTion was made To The Chairman, CenTrai Purchase CommiTTee on 3-2-2005, buT The same also faiied To evoke any response Till daTe. Even respondenT No.3 was noT eiigible on The lasT daTe of submission of The Tender as his Turn over for The year 2002-03 and 2003-04 wasEss/ i fhan Rs.4.5 crores. I'l's ‘rurn over was only Rs.2.80 crores for fhe yaar 2002—03. Remm has been filed on behalf of respondems No.1 and 2 in which iT has been mem'ioned fha'r correc? procedure was adopted by fhe responden‘rs and orders for purchase in respeci’ 9f 31 ifems have been piaced. The rows of 31 Hams have been approved by The Cen'l'rcd Purchase CommiHee. The purchase cf ins'i‘rumenfs for Depar'fmen‘f af Heal'rh and Family Welfare is cf sensifive naTure as mos'r of Them are iife saving insi'rumen‘rs and any compromise on qualify or specification vis-a—vis ‘i’e’r‘ms and conditions of ‘i'he fender noi’ice shaii uH'imaTeiy affec‘i’ pubiic a? large, Therefore, The insTanT pe'riiion chulienging ihe decision faken by ihe reeponden‘i‘s in public inferes'r is no'r main-i'ainabie’. I‘r has fur‘rher been meni‘ioned fha‘i' Pre~quoiifico+ion was examined from 1-10-2004 i'o 12-10-2004, The le'i'i'ers were issued on 12-10- 2004. The Purchase Commi‘i‘i’ee mei‘ on 14-10-2004. Thereaf‘rer from 14-10-2004 To 20-10-2004 represemaTions were received from The fenderers and on 2040-2004, after considering The represen‘i'afionsi, 5 more Tenderers were found 1’0 be qualified. The fender Purchase Commi‘Hee offer verification of records, documen'is made avaiiabie by each of 1'he ienderers, prepared +he pre-quaiifica‘iion checkiisf for each of The Tenderers de’i’ermining The fenderers and company wise qualificaiions (Annexure~R/6). The Purchase CommiHee also prepared ii'em wise pre-qualifica'i'ion repor'i' for fhe Qualified companies vide Annexure—R/7. .Af‘rer evaluaiing pre-qualificaiion condi‘iion men'iioned . in +he N.I.T., +he company wise/Hem wise checklis‘l' was prepared by ‘ihe Purchase Commii‘iee vide Annexure-R/S whereby The ra'ies of oniy 38 items have been approved by fhe Cen‘iral Purchase Commii’i‘ee and oui' of ‘i'ha‘l 31 i‘l'ems have been purchased by ‘i'he responden‘i's. The procedure adopted by The Purchase CommiTTee and approved by The CenTral Purchase Commi‘l‘l'ee is jus‘l’, fair, reasonable and Transparent which is proved by The facT ThaT 9 iTems for which Tender has been g; submi‘H'ed by fhe pe+i+ioner has been apyroved. The Tenderer-s have been granfed oppor‘runi‘l'y fa represent againsf The findings recorded by fhe Tender commiffee regarding Their pre-qualificu'fion, fher‘efore, principles of nafuml jus+ice have aiso been followed. The proceedings of The mee'ring da‘red i4-10-2004 would indica‘re Thu? a“ The par‘ries were allowed 1'0 make fheir observafions wherein i1- was men‘tioned fhai' The objections raised regarding auThorizafion. If was further meni’ioned by fhe . Tenderers inciuding The pei‘i‘riener Thu? if any documenf is no‘i' submi‘r'red, Then fhey may be ailowed 1'0 submi'r 1'i1eir documen'i's because priCe bid was noi epened. Affer considering The represenmiions received from fhe 'i'ender‘ers who were disqualified in ihe pre-quaiifim‘rion bid before finaiizing The ‘i’echnicni bid; 5 more Tenderers were uiiowed To participate offer coming To know The? They fulfilled +he requiremen'i's of pre-qualifica‘iion. This was done in a meeiing of 'i'he Purchase Commi'H’ee held on 20-10-2004 . When on exuminmion iT was found The? There were serious shortcomings in The documen‘i's submiTTed by The peTiTioner and o‘l'her parTies, They were coiled To indicaTe ThaT wheTher They have fulfilled The requiremenTs, buT They could noT suTisfy The uuThoriTies. Hence, Those documenTs in respecT of which “serious shorTcomings were observed were noT senT for Technical exominoTion before The Technical commiTTee. The Purchase CommiTTee afTer- examining all The documenfs TobuloTed all The iTems, names of The companies, selecTed companies and has also given reasons for rejecTion of iTems. The peTiTioner submiTTed cerTain irrelevanT documenTs from The manufacturer of company for example Siemens and his agency agreemenf documenT does noT menTion The daTe of issue and also does noT bear The signaTur-e of auThorized signaTory of The manufacfurer. Every possibleAopporTuniTy was afforded ‘To’The peTiTioner and ali‘ oTher Tenderers To clarify documenTs wiTh TesTimonials, buT The peTiTioner failed To clarify wiTh regard To Those documenTs‘ The peTmQWrerS‘ bid i ‘ have no1' been acoep+ecL I‘I' has been prayed +ha+ ‘fhe wri‘r pe+i+ion be dismissed. 9. Return has aiso been fHed on behalf of oTher respondem's. iO‘I have heard Shri Munindm Shrivusmvu, 5r. Advucq‘i‘c wi+h 5hri Amrifo Das, Advucufe for +he pei’i‘rioner; Shri Pmshcmi' Mishm, Addifionai Advocm‘e Genera! for The STaTe/respondems No.1 <§ 2; Smf. Fouzia Mirza, Advoca're for respondem No.3; Shri P. Diwakar: Sr. Advoca‘fe wHh Shri Kunal Dos, Advocafe for responden'r No.4: Shri B.P. $hor'ma, Advocm‘e for responden'rs No.6 & 9; 5hri Sanjcly K. Agrawu], Advoca'fe for responderrfs No.7 8. 10; and Shri Ranbir' Singh Marhas, Advoca‘l’e for respondem No.8. 5hri Munindm Shrivusfuvu, learned Senior Counsel for flue peli‘lioner argued ‘l'hn'l' once in +he mee‘l'lng dn'l'ed 1-10—2004 ‘l'he pe+i+ioner's pre- quallflcafion fender was found To be in order and Thereof‘rer, on 14-10— 2004 mee'l'ing was fixed for opening of fechnical bid, fhe Purchase . Commi‘lfee was nol‘ oulhorized To re-open 'l‘he scruliny of pre- qualifica‘rion fender and ques‘rion The documems of The peTl'rioner which were already considered 'l-o be in order. Second ground of of'l'ock was fhof on scrufiny of Pre-quolificofion, lender‘s of 5 persons were no‘f found +0 be in order, 'l‘herefore, “the Purchase Commi‘l'fee was no'l' authorized +0 ailow 'ihose persons 'l'o rec‘i’ify Their defec'i's. This procedure was noT as in Terms and conditions of N.I.T., Therefore, whole process of, award of confracf sfands vi'l'iafed. He furfher submi‘l'i'ed ‘i'haf responden‘i's were allowed 1'0 rec‘l'ify‘fheir Tender documents, whereas, fhe pefifioner' was never served wifh any nofice in wri+ing asking him +o recfify fhe defec‘l‘, if any, in respecf of Agency agreemenf, 150 cer'i'ifioa‘re and auThoriza'rion lef'rers. He fur'rher argued fha‘i' ‘i'hose' ‘persons were allowed fa submi‘l‘ fhe Agency agreement ISO cer'i'ifical'es and fhe authorization lef'i'er, and even fhe documents regarding Their financial sTa‘rus, which were The main basis xx . of 'Hne Pre—quaiifica‘fion. He also urged ‘Hwo‘l' even respondenf No3 was not eligible To submi‘r his Tender because as per The farms and condh‘ions of N.I.T. fi“ fhe iasf da're of filing of The fender documem‘ he was no‘f abie +0 submi‘i‘ his affidavit- or cer'rifica'i'e from 14m Commercial Tax Depar‘fmen'r regarding his tum over worTh Rs.4.5 wwes during fhe financial year‘s of 2002—03 and 2003-04, bui' he was allowed ‘i'o submif The same lai’er an. The documen‘l’ submifi’ed by respondenT No.3 regarding his financial capaciTy shows Tha'r amended refurn was filed, bu‘r fhere is no1'hing on record which proves rhod- he was assassed by rhe Sales Tax Officer having 'i'he business furn over of R345 crores bofh i'he years. 12, On The ofher hand, learned Addifional Advoca're General submi‘Hed ‘rha'r respondents received represenfa‘rions in be‘iween 14-10—2004 ?o 20-10-2004 regarding fender documen'l's. On eonsidering fhose represen‘i‘a‘i’ians, +he Commi‘H’ee reached 'i’o lhe caneiusian ‘i'ha-‘i' “the peTiTioner does noT fulfiil The Terms and condifions of The NIT, fherefore, his +ender documen'r was scru+inized. Similarly, fender documenfs of ofher persons were also scruflnized and all fhe par-Ties were allowed lo rectify their defec‘ls and full oppor‘luniiy was gram‘ed ‘l’n everyone, 'l‘herefore, confen‘l'ion of”, learned counsel for ‘l'he peTiTioner Tha‘r The peTiTioner was not allowed To reclify The defecT is noT correct He furTher submiTTed Tha‘l’ The peTi‘l'ioner was informed abouT The defecT vide Annexure-P/o. He also argued ThaT purchase order has already‘been given by respondem‘ No.2 To respondenTs No.3, 4, 8 and oTher responden‘l’s, even They have made The Supplies, Therefore, wriT as asked for cannoT be issued. 13. 5hri P. Diwakar, learned Senior Counsel for respondenT No.4 submiT-red Tha-l- supply has already been made. This peTiTion has been filed affer- The purchasa order was issued in favour of respondenTs and The same has noT been challenged, Therefore, The wriT peTiTion is liable To be dismissed. He furTher SubmiTTed ThaT The ieTTer Annexure-R/4-2 daTed ‘ 17-11-‘7004 was given +a all fhe con‘rmcfors #0 appear before fhe Cammiffee for re-scrufiny of Their forms. 14‘5hri B.P. shurmu, learned ccunsel for respondems No.6 and 9 5ubmif1'ed ‘H'm'f The pe‘ri‘rioner‘ has no? men‘rionad his s’m'ms. This pefi‘h‘on has been filed on behaif of fhe {Iompany whereas, i1' oughi‘ 1'0 have been fiied an behaif 0f Krishun Vibhufi Anund‘ As ihe firm cunno'i doim fundamenfal right fherefore, fhe pe+i+ion should be dismissed. 15.3hri Sanjay K, Agrawai, iearned counsel for respondenfs No.7 and’lO submi‘h‘ed Thai notifica‘rion of award and award of coniraci has nol keen chaiienged, iherefor-e, wri‘i pefi‘l'ion is iiabie 'l'a he dismissed. 16. 5min Fouzia Mirza, counsei for responder-rt No.3 submi‘l'l'ed Thai as per ihe documeni‘ Annexure-R—S/9 dm‘ed 54-2005 i‘i is apparem‘ Thai “the 'l'urn aver of nesponden'l' No.3 was more fhan R345 crores and responden’r No.3 was enTiTied to fiie amended refurn before The sales Tax. Officer, as such There is no subsTance in The argumenT of learned eounsei for The peTiTioner ThaT respondenT No.3 was noT eiigible in Terms of Turn over for The year 2002-03 and 2003-94. 17. As far as The quesTion of judicial review To be exercised in eanTracTuai \ maTTers is concerned, ae back as in The )year 1979, Hon’bie The Apex CourT in The maTTer of Romano Dayaram sheTTy vs. InTemaTional AirporT AuThoriTy of India and o'i'hors reporTeoi in (1979) 3 SCC 489, heid ThaT "\ I “Adminie'irai'ive au'l'hori'l'y is equally bound by The nerms, sTandards and procedures laid down by iT for oThers - Disregard of The norm or sTandord would involidaTe is acTion unless based on some valid principle which is neiTher irraTional or unreasonable nor discriminafory - Rule ageinsT such arbiTrary acTion applies independen‘l'ly of ArTicle 14." ”5Tandard of eligibiliTy laid down in The noTice for fenders, held, cmnoT be depar‘i‘ed from arbiTrarily - Such deparTure from The sTandar-d, held, will amounT To denial of equaiify of opporTuniTy To Those who feiT bound by The 10 sfandard of eligibilify and Therefore did no‘r submH' fheir fenders.“ “Reicuafion of The smndard of eligibiii‘ry a? The Time of considering The Tenders or applications, held, wili amount io a denial of oppor'i’unify +0 fhose who cansidering ihemseives ineligibie did nof apply.” {Emphasis supplied) 18.Again in lhe mailer of Tam Cellular vvs. Union of India repor‘red in 1994 (6) 5CC 651, The Apex Cour'l' held ihq‘l' judicial review can be exercised by fhe Courf in order 'i’o preven'f erbi‘i’mriness or favouriTism. However, There are inheren‘r limiTaTicns inexercise of +ha+ pewer of Judicial review Governmen'i' is 1'he guardian of +he finances of ihe Sia'ie. IT is expeci‘ed To proieci' fhe financial inferesf of The 51‘a'l'e. Bui, The principles laid down in Ari-isle 14 of ihe Cans‘l'i’lu‘l'ion have fa be kep‘l' in View while accepfing or refusing a ”render. There is no quesi'ion of infringemen'r of ArTicle 14 if The GovernmenT Tries To geT The besT person or The besT quoTaTion. The righT To choose cannoT be considered To be an arbiTrary power. Of course, if The said power is exercised for any collaTeral purpose The exercise of Tha‘f power will be s‘l'ruck down. The Courl’ furTher observed ThaT The duTy of The CourT is To confine ifself To The quesTion of legallTy. ITS concern should be: (ifwheTher a decision-making euThoriTy exceeded iTs powers? (ii) commiTTed on error of law: (ill) commiTTed a breach of The rules of noTural jusTice; (iv) reached a decision which no reasonable Tribunal would have reached; or (v) abused iTs powers. IT-is ‘noT for The CourT To deTermine wheTher parTicular policy or parTicular decision Taken in The fuifillmenT of ThaT policy is fair. IT is only concerned wiTh The manner in which Those decisions have been Taken. The exTenT of The duTy To acT fairly will vary from case To case. Judicial review can be classified as under iliegaliTy, irraTionaliTy and procedural improprieTy. , A‘\V (Emphasis suppiiea‘) in f'ne maf‘i'er of Monarch Infrasfruc'i'ure (P) Lfd, 20.Again Commissioner, Uihasnagar Municipal Corporation and others reporfed in (2000) 5 SCC 287, fhe Apex Cour'i', held fhaf The farms and condii‘ions‘in The Tender are prescribed bydhe Governmen‘r bearing in mind fhe nafure of confraof and in such maf'i’ers fhe aufhori‘ry calling for “ihe fender is fhe besf Judge +0 prescribe fhe farms and condi‘i’ions of the Tender. If is not for The Courts To say whether The conditions prescribed in fhe fender under considerafions Were beffer fhan fhe one prescribed in The earlier Tender inviTaTions. BuT, in case of The deleTion of eligibilify condh‘ion affer expiry of ‘ihe fime—limif for submission of fenders, bu'i' before opening The fender, The CourT held ThaT award of contracT To a Tenderer who of The Time of submission of Tender did noT safisfy The said condiTion righfly sef aside by High Court as arbii’rary. The Apex Cour? furfher held fhaf fhe Governmen'r 1] “The award of a contract whe‘rher if is by a priva‘i'e parry or by a public body or fhe S1‘a‘l'e, is essenfiauy a cammerciai fransaci'ion. In arriving m‘ a commerciai decision considerm‘ions which are paramounf are commerciai considemfions. The 51‘m‘e can choose ifs own mefhod fa arrive ai' a decision. If can fix #5 own farms af I'nvifafion 7‘0 fender and fhm‘ is' naf open fa Judicial scmr/hm I1“ can enter in'ro negofiaiions before finaiiy deciding fa ucaepf one of fhe offers made fa ii'. Price need no‘f aiwqys be *he sole cri‘fer'ion for awarding a confrac‘r. If is free 1'0 grani- nny relaxafion, for bona fide reasons, if The Tender condiTions permi‘r such a reiuxwrion‘ I? may no‘i' qccepf fhe offer even Though if happens fo be fhe highesf or The lowest Buf fhe Sfafe, ifs corpomfions, insfrumen‘raiifies and agencies are bound To adhere f0 fhe norms, smndards and procedures iaid down by fhem and cannot depari‘ from fhem arbifmriiy. Though fha'i' decision is nof amenable f0 Judicial review, The Cour? can examine fhe decision-making process and inferfere if if is found vii'iafed by maia fides, unreasonableness and arbifrariness" éi‘ V. 19.In fhe maf'i-er of Air India Limifed vs. Cochin Inferna+ional Airport Limi‘fed repor‘i‘ed in (2000) 2 5C6 617, The Apex Couri' held fha‘i canno'l' arbi'l'rarily choose any person if Hkes for en‘i‘ering info such a relafionship or To discriminm'e beTween persons similarly si‘ruafe. 20.In The mcmer of W.B. SmTe Elecfricny Board vs. Pare! Engineerm'g Ca; L'fdA and ofhers reporfed in (2001) 2 SCC 451, fhe Apex Caur‘r heid Tha? “Rub of law and consfim‘fionul values, musf be adhered 1'0 when awarding confmct - Ruies and ins‘l'rucfians mus? be compiied wi‘fh scrupuiously in order 1’0 avoid discriminaTion, arbiTrariness and favourriism, which are con'i’mry Ta rule of law and consi’i‘lu‘iional values - Qelaxalion by S'm‘l’e or ii's agencies of a rule or condi'l'ion in favour of a particular bidder, held, no? permissible unless expressly provided for in The rules." “Adherence To The ruies, held, is The besf principle To be followed in The public inTeresT." IT was ‘FurTher held ThaT “where bidders who fulfill pre-qualificaTion alone are inviTed To bid, adherence To The insTrucTions cannoT be given o go-by by branding iT as apedan‘l-ic approach] oTherwise iT wiil encourage and provide scope for discriminaTionJ arbiTrariness and favouriTism which are ToTally opposed To The ruie of law and consTiTuTional values”. x (Emphasis supplied) 21.In The maTTer of DuHo 'AssocioTes PVT. ’LTd. vs. Indo MerchanTiles WT. tTd. and oThers reporTed in (199T) 1 SCC 53, The Apex CourT held Tha‘l’ u AccepTance of Tender - Decision—making process should be TransparenT, fair and open - Any abuse of power for exTraneous reasons would make The auThoriTies concerned liable To appropriaTe