Case: Shimnit Utsch India Pvt. Ltd. &amp; Another Vs. West Bengal Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. &amp; Others

feel it would be in the interest of all concerned if the States and Union Territories take definite decision as to whether there is need for giving effect to the amended Rule 50 and the scheme of HSRP and the modalities to be followed. It was further observed that while taking the decision, the aspects highlighted by this Court in Association of Registration Plates1 shall be kept in view. After disposal of the PIL, the petitioner therein filed I.A. No. 5 for clarification of the order dated May 8, 2008 and this Court while disposing of the said I.A. on May 5, 2009 clarified that there was no discretion given to the States/UTs not to give effect to the amended Rule 50 and the claim of HSRP and the modalities to be followed. Thereafter, I.A. was filed by the Central Government on September 17, 2009 before this Court for extension of time wherein the following statement was made: "The primary reason for non implementation of the scheme has been the challenges to certain conditions of the tender floated by various States. The issues such as experience in foreign countries, minimum net worth and turnover with a certain prescribed percentage of turn over from number plate business in the immediately preceding last three years and long term contract to a single vendor for the entire State had been the subject matter of WP(C) No. 41 of 2003--Association of Registration Plates Vs. UOI & Ors. That this Honble Court in the judgment dated 30th November, 2004, laid to rest all such issues by holding that all such conditions were essential and mandatory conditions of the HSRP tender to ensure that the vendors selected by the States would be technically and financially competent to fulfill the contractual obligations which looking to the magnitude of the job requires huge investment qualitatively and quantitatively." By order dated December 15, 2009, this Court extended the time for implementation of HSRP upto May 31, 2010. None of these orders holds that while implementing the new system of HSRP, States and UTs are bound to incorporate the conditions of foreign experience and minimum turnover from that business. The statement made by the Central Government in its application as aforenoticed only reflected the reason for non-implementation of HSRP scheme. As a matter of fact, the Central Government has clarified the position in its communication with the States/UTs that draft tender conditions circulated by them are only suggestive. Be that as it may. The decision of this Court in Maninderjit Singh Bitta and the subsequently clarificatory order therein are hardly relevant and do not help the case of the appellants.52. It is important to notice that the bids pursuant to the second NIT have been evaluated by WBTIDCL and we have been informed that the lowest bid per HSRP unit for a vehicle is Rs. 469/- while the offer made by Shimnit (appellant) is of about Rs. 1200/-. Such a huge difference in the rate per HSRP unit shows that the action of the State Government in doing away with the conditions of experience in foreign countries and prescribed turnover from such business has been in larger public interest without compromising on safety, security and quality or sustainable capacity.53. Mr. F.S. Nariman, learned senior counsel contended that cancellation of first NIT and issuance of second NIT by the Government of West Bengal was actuated with malafides as Shimnit had challenged the pre-qualification of Promuk by filing a writ petition before the Calcutta High Court wherein an interim order also came to be passed. We are not impressed by this submission at all and it is noted to be rejected. There is no material much less substantial material to infer any malafides. Merely because Shimnit challenged the pre-qualification of Promuk before Calcutta High Court, it could hardly lead to an inference of malafides.54. It is true that the State or its tendering authority is bound to give effect to essential conditions of eligibility stated in a tender document and is not entitled to waive such conditions but that does not take away its administrative discretion to cancel the entire tender process in public interest provided such action is not actuated with ulterior motive or is otherwise not vitiated by any vice of arbitrariness or irrationality or in violation of some statutory provisions. It is always open to the State to give effect to new policy which it wished to pursue keeping in view `overriding public interest and subject to principles of Wednesbury reasonableness. The judgment of Guwahati High Court in Real Mazon India Ltd. v. State of Assam and Ors. (2008 (1) GLT 1020) was also pressed into service by the appellants. In that case, the corrigenda dated December 26, 2006, January 6, 2007 and January 16, 2007 issued by the State of Assam deleting the conditions of experience, expertise and exposure of the bidders in the manufacture and supply of HSRP were challenged. Guwahati High Court quashed the impugned corrigenda. We are unable to approve the judgment of the Guwahati High Court in Real Mazon India Ltd.17 for the reasons given above.55. As regards the State of Orissa, it is an admitted position that it issued NIT for the first time on April 11, 2007 inviting bids for the manufacture and supply of HSRP in respect of the existing motor vehicles and vehicles to be registered in the State of Orissa. The said NIT was not taken to logical conclusion and a fresh NIT was issued on July 6, 2009 on BOO basis. In that NIT, inter alia, eligibility criteria has been provided that bidder should have experience of working in the field of HSRP having used the security features as mentioned in Rule 50 of 1989 Rules. However, NIT does not insist on conditions like experience in the foreign countries and minimum prescribed turnover from the said business. In what we have already discussed above, no case for judicial review or intervention in the said NIT is made out.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]46. In the light of the afore-noticed legal position, we shall now examine whether judicial intervention is called for in NIT issued by the State of West Bengal and State of Orissa for manufacture and supply of HSRP. Insofar as State of West Bengal is concerned, the first NIT was issued in the month of July, 2003 fixing August 6, 2003 as the last date for submission of tender papers. Pursuant thereto, four bidders participated. The finalization of the tender process could not take place because of interim order passed by this Court in Association of Registration Plates1 and other connected cases. These cases were decided by this Court on November 30, 2004. Of the four bidders, who initially participated in the tender process, one withdrew and as regards Promuk, an objection was raised by Shimnit about their eligibility. Shimnit approached Calcutta High Court and obtained an interim order from the Single Judge that tender process shall not be finalized. As a matter of fact, due to litigation no substantial progress took place for two years in finalization of process for which NIT was issued in July, 2003 and practically two bidders in the entire tender process remained in fray. In interregnum, considerable number of indigenous manufacturers obtained the requisite TAC from the approved institutions as per the provisions of 1988 Act and thereby acquired capacity and ability to manufacture HSRP. In the backdrop of these reasons, the State Government seemed to have formed an opinion that by increasing competition, greater public interest could be achieved and, accordingly, decided to cancel first NIT and issued second NIT doing away with conditions like experience in foreign countries and prescribed minimum turnover from that business. Whether State Government could have changed terms of NIT despite the judgment of this Court in Association of Registration Plates1? Once a particular matter relating to conditions in NIT has been finally decided by the highest Court, the State Government, which was party to the litigation, ought to have proceeded accordingly but, in a case such as the present one, where the circumstances changed in some material respects as aforenoticed, departure from the earlier policy cannot be held to be legally flawed, particularly when there is no challenge to the changed policy reflected in second NIT on the ground of Wednesbury reasonableness or principle of legitimate expectation or arbitrariness or irrationality. In considering whether there has been a change of circumstances sufficient to justify departure from the previous stance, the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court recorded a finding that reasons stated by the State Government for departure from the conditions in the first NIT did exist and accepted the contention of the State Government that by increasing the area of competition, greater public interest would be sub-served because of financial implications. We have no justifiable reason to take a view different from the High Court insofar as correctness of these reasons is concerned. The courts have repeatedly held that government policy can be changed with changing circumstances and only on the ground of change, such policy will not be vitiated. The government has a discretion to adopt a different policy or alter or change its policy calculated to serve public interest and make it more effective. Choice in the balancing of the pros and cons relevant to the change in policy lies with the authority. But like any discretion exercisable by the government or public authority, change in policy must be in conformity with Wednesbury reasonableness and free from arbitrariness, irrationality, bias and malice.47. In Association of Registration Plates1, this Court while dealing with the challenge to the conditions with regard to experience in foreign countries and prescribed minimum turnover from that business observed that these conditions have been framed in the NIT to ensure that the manufacturer selected would be technically and financially competent to fulfill the contractual obligations and to eliminate fly-by-night operators and that the insistence of the State to search for an experienced manufacturer with sound financial and technical capacity cannot be misunderstood. While maintaining the State Governments right to get the right and most competent person, it was held that in the matter of formulating conditions of a tender document and awarding a contract of the nature of ensuring supply of HSRP, greater latitude is required to be conceded to the State authorities and unless the action of tendering authority is found to be malicious and a misuse of statutory powers, tender conditions are unassailable. On the contentions advanced, this Court examined the impugned conditions and did not find any fault and overruled all objections raised by the petitioners therein in challenge to these conditions. This Court has neither laid down as an absolute proposition that manufacturer of HSRP must have the foreign experience and a particular financial capacity to fulfill the contractual obligations nor it has been held that these conditions must necessarily be insisted upon in the NIT. The judgment of this Court in Association of Registration Plates1 cannot be read as prescribing the conditions in NIT for manufacture and supply of HSRP. Rather this Court examined legality and justification of the impugned conditions within the permissible parameters of judicial review and recognized the right of the States in formulating tender conditions. In our opinion, there is no justification in denying the State authorities latitude for departure from the conditions of the NIT that came up for consideration before this Court in larger public interest to broaden the base of competitive bidding due to lapse of time and substantial increase in the number of persons having TAC from the approved institutes without compromising on the quality and specifications of HSRP as set out in Rule 50, Order 2001 and Amendment Order, 2001.48. Mr. F.S. Nariman, learned senior counsel heavily relied upon a decision of this Court in S. Nagaraj & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr.16 and submitted that the decision of this Court in Association of Registration Plates1 was binding on all States and the said judgment has to be enforced and obeyed strictly and any deviation from those conditions by the States on their own is impermissible.49. In S. Nagaraj & Ors. (1993 Suppl. (4) SCC 595) , this Court observed as followsit so? Could the Government take up this stand? Law on the binding effect of an order passed by a court of law is well settled. Nor there can be any conflict of opinion that if an order had been passed by a court which had jurisdiction to pass it then the error or mistake in the order can be got corrected by a higher court or by an application for clarification, modification or recall of the order and not by ignoring the order by any authority actively or passively or disobeying it expressly or impliedly. Even if the order has been improperly obtained the authorities cannot assume on themselves the role of substituting it or clarifying and modifying it as they consider proper. In Halsburys Laws of England (Fourth Edn., Vol. 9, p. 35, para 55) the law on orders improperly obtained is stated thus:"The opinion has been expressed that the fact that an order ought not to have been made is not a sufficient excuse for disobeying it, that disobedience to it constitutes a contempt, and that the party aggrieved should apply to the court for relief from compliance with the order."Any order passed by a court of law, more so by the higher courts and especially this Court whose decisions are declarations of law are not only entitled to respect but are binding and have to be enforced and obeyed strictly. No court much less an authority howsoever high can ignore it. Any doubt or ambiguity can be removed by the court which passed the order and not by an authority according to its own understanding.The statement of law exposited in S. Nagaraj16 is beyond question. As noticed above, in the case of Association of Registration Plates1, this Court did not find any fault with the controversial conditions in the NIT and overruled all objections raised by the petitioners therein in challenge to those conditions. The impugned conditions of NIT in that group of cases were not held to be arbitrary, discriminatory or irrational nor amounted to creation of any monopoly as alleged. The declaration of law by this Court in Association of Registration Plates1 is that in the matter of formulating conditions for a contract of the nature of ensuring supply of HSRP, greater latitude needs to be accorded to the State authorities. We find it difficult to hold that by virtue of that judgment the impugned conditions were frozen for all times to come and the States were obliged to persist with these conditions and could not alter them in larger interest of the public. In our view, the decision of this Court in Association of Registration Plates1 did not create any impediment for the States to alter or modify the conditions in the NIT if the circumstances changed in material respects by lapse of time.51. In the PIL filed by Maninderjit Singh Bitta, it was prayed that the States and UTs be directed to implement the judgment of this Court in Association of Registration Plates1 . This Court disposed of the writ petition on May 8, 2008 by observing, `we feel it would be in the interest of all concerned if the States and Union Territories take definite decision as to whether there is need for giving effect to the amended Rule 50 and the scheme of HSRP and the modalities to be followed. It was further observed that while taking the decision, the aspects highlighted by this Court in Association of Registration Plates1 shall be kept in view. After disposal of the PIL, the petitioner therein filed I.A. No. 5 for clarification of the order dated May 8, 2008 and this Court while disposing of the said I.A. on May 5, 2009 clarified that there was no discretion given to the States/UTs not to give effect to the amended Rule 50 and the claim of HSRP and the modalities to be followed. Thereafter, I.A. was filed by the Central Government on September 17, 2009 before this Court for extension of time wherein the following statement wasprimary reason for non implementation of the scheme has been the challenges to certain conditions of the tender floated by various States. The issues such as experience in foreign countries, minimum net worth and turnover with a certain prescribed percentage of turn over from number plate business in the immediately preceding last three years and long term contract to a single vendor for the entire State had been the subject matter of WP(C) No. 41 of 2003--Association of Registration Plates Vs. UOI & Ors. That this Honble Court in the judgment dated 30th November, 2004, laid to rest all such issues by holding that all such conditions were essential and mandatory conditions of the HSRP tender to ensure that the vendors selected by the States would be technically and financially competent to fulfill the contractual obligations which looking to the magnitude of the job requires huge investment qualitatively andorder dated December 15, 2009, this Court extended the time for implementation of HSRP upto May 31, 2010. None of these orders holds that while implementing the new system of HSRP, States and UTs are bound to incorporate the conditions of foreign experience and minimum turnover from that business. The statement made by the Central Government in its application as aforenoticed only reflected the reason for non-implementation of HSRP scheme. As a matter of fact, the Central Government has clarified the position in its communication with the States/UTs that draft tender conditions circulated by them are only suggestive. Be that as it may. The decision of this Court in Maninderjit Singh Bitta and the subsequently clarificatory order therein are hardly relevant and do not help the case of the appellants.52. It is important to notice that the bids pursuant to the second NIT have been evaluated by WBTIDCL and we have been informed that the lowest bid per HSRP unit for a vehicle is Rs. 469/- while the offer made by Shimnit (appellant) is of about Rs. 1200/-. Such a huge difference in the rate per HSRP unit shows that the action of the State Government in doing away with the conditions of experience in foreign countries and prescribed turnover from such business has been in larger public interest without compromising on safety, security and quality or sustainable capacity.53. Mr. F.S. Nariman, learned senior counsel contended that cancellation of first NIT and issuance of second NIT by the Government of West Bengal was actuated with malafides as Shimnit had challenged the pre-qualification of Promuk by filing a writ petition before the Calcutta High Court wherein an interim order also came to be passed. We are not impressed by this submission at all and it is noted to be rejected. There is no material much less substantial material to infer any malafides. Merely because Shimnit challenged the pre-qualification of Promuk before Calcutta High Court, it could hardly lead to an inference of malafides.54. It is true that the State or its tendering authority is bound to give effect to essential conditions of eligibility stated in a tender document and is not entitled to waive such conditions but that does not take away its administrative discretion to cancel the entire tender process in public interest provided such action is not actuated with ulterior motive or is otherwise not vitiated by any vice of arbitrariness or irrationality or in violation of some statutory provisions. It is always open to the State to give effect to new policy which it wished to pursue keeping in view `overriding public interest and subject to principles of Wednesbury reasonableness. The judgment of Guwahati High Court in Real Mazon India Ltd. v. State of Assam and Ors. (2008 (1) GLT 1020) was also pressed into service by the appellants. In that case, the corrigenda dated December 26, 2006, January 6, 2007 and January 16, 2007 issued by the State of Assam deleting the conditions of experience, expertise and exposure of the bidders in the manufacture and supply of HSRP were challenged. Guwahati High Court quashed the impugned corrigenda. We are unable to approve the judgment of the Guwahati High Court in Real Mazon India Ltd.17 for the reasons given above.55. As regards the State of Orissa, it is an admitted position that it issued NIT for the first time on April 11, 2007 inviting bids for the manufacture and supply of HSRP in respect of the existing motor vehicles and vehicles to be registered in the State of Orissa. The said NIT was not taken to logical conclusion and a fresh NIT was issued on July 6, 2009 on BOO basis. In that NIT, inter alia, eligibility criteria has been provided that bidder should have experience of working in the field of HSRP having used the security features as mentioned in Rule 50 of 1989 Rules. However, NIT does not insist on conditions like experience in the foreign countries and minimum prescribed turnover from the said business. In what we have already discussed above, no case for judicial review or intervention in the said NIT is made out.