Case: Ramchandra Murarilal Bhattad  Vs. State Of Maharashtra

point of time, as was disclosed in the Counter Affidavit, had thought of setting up a Convention Centre of their own and without any private participation, but only because there has been a deviation from the said stand would not, in our considered opinion, render the entire policy decision vitiated in law. It had set up its Evaluation Committee. The decision presumably has been reached by experts.38. The reasons as regards purported unsatisfactory performance of Appellants, take a back seat once having a re-look to the entire situation was thought of. It is not a case where the Court is called upon to exercise its equity jurisdiction. It is also not a case where ex facie the policy decision can be held to be contrary to any statute or against a public policy. A policy decision may be subjected to change from time to time. Only because a change is effected, the same by itself does not render a policy decision to be illegal or otherwise vitiated in law. 39. In Harminder Singh Arora vs. Union of India & Ors. [(1986) 3 SCC 247] , whereupon Dr. Singhvi relied upon, the tender was arbitrarily rejected. Therein the writ petition was dismissed in limine only on the premise that the question involved therein related to contractual obligations and the policy decision could not be termed as unfair or arbitrary. It was opined that therein no question of policy decision arose and as such contract was to be given to the lowest bidder in terms of the tender notice and the contract should have been awarded to the appellant therein, especially when he had been doing the job for many years. As to how the said decision is applicable to the facts of the present case, we fail to understand. For the self-same reasons we are unable to appreciate the contention that only because a change has been effected in computation of total price under the new tender, the same was invalid in law. 40. In New Horizons Ltd. & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. [(1995) 1 SCC 478] , this Court opined that in the matter of grant of tender the State cannot act as a private person having regard to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It was categorically opined that departing from the narrow legalistic view the Courts have taken note of the realities of the situation which, by no stretch of imagination, would mean that the Court would substitute itself in the place of a statutory authority. The Court in a case of this nature must exercise judicial restraint. It may be one thing to say that having regard to the public interest, the Court may itself invite bids so as to verify the justification of accepting a palpably lower bid as was done in Ram and Shyam Company vs. State of Haryana and Ors. [(1985) 3 SCC 267] , but it is another thing to say the Court would under all circumstances not allow a play in joint in favour of the employer. 41. However, if the Court in a given situation is not in a position to allow a bid to take place before, it may not still venture to strike down an Act in the name of public interest, although, no such public interest exists. Appellant stated before us that he is ready and willing to take a part of the contract, viz., construction of the C&EC and pay the same amount as has been done by Reliance Industries Ltd. and in addition it would pay 2.5% of its annual turnover from the Convention Centre from the 21st year, as was initially offered.42. Appellant did not participate in the second bid. The tender process is complete. Before us only a higher bid has been given. We do not intend to enter into the intricacies of the question. Appellants could have submitted its bids pursuant to the new tender and new conditions, even without prejudice to its rights and contentions in this appeal. The stipulations made in 2002 tender could have been repeated by it so as to demonstrate before the experts comprising members of the Executive Committee that its bid was the highest. If, in view of the change in the policy decision, the Authority does not intend to become a partner in the profit making and opt for having the entire bid amount at one go instead of waiting for 20 years, we do not find any fault therewith. 43. Before us comparative bids of the bidders have been placed on the second tender, which are as follows: SR. No.Name of the BidderBid Amount Rs.Rate per sq. m. (approx.) Rs. 1.Reliance Industries Ltd.11,04,00,00,11196000 2.DLF1050 crores91304 3.Reliance Communications &1011.12 crores87913 Infrastructure Ltd. 4.Gammon India1011 crores87913 5.EMAR911.07 crores79217 The comparative statistics reads as under : 1.Rate offered by the petitioners Rs.Rs.12,121 per sq. mtrs. 91.514 crores (divided by) 75,500 sq.mtrs. 2.Rate expected by MMRDARs. 25,000 per sq. mtr. 3.Amount for 75,500 sq. mtrs @ Rs. 25,000/- perRs. 188.75 crores sq. mtr. (This should have been the minimum bid in 2003) 4.Amount for 1,15,000 sq.mtrs @ Rs. 25,000/- perRs. 287.50 crores sq. mtr. (This would have been the reserve price at old rate in 2005) 5.Reserve Bid of MMRDA in 2005 (Minimum priceRs. 480 crores revised as below) 6.Rate per sq. mtr. in the Reserve bidRs. 41,739/- per sq. mtr. Rs. 480 crores (divided by) 1,15,000 sq.mtrs. 7.Bid by Reliance Industries Ltd.Rs. 11,04,00,00,111/- 8.Rate per sq. mtr. of RIL BidRs.96,000/- per sq. mtr. Rs. 11,04,00,00,111/- (divided by) 1,15,000 sq. mtrs. 44. Appellant complains that whereas the bid of Sister concern of Reliance Industries Ltd. was very low, now it has offered a bid of Rs.1104,00,00,111/-. From the chart placed before us it would appear that there had been a stiff computation. The Reliance Industries Ltd. has become the highest bidder. Its competitors had taken part in the earlier contracts. No mala fide in accepting the tender has been alleged nor do we find any.

Court's decision (1 = petition accepted / positive for appellant, 0 = rejected / negative): 0

Reasoning from the judgment:
0[ds]21. The principal question which arises for consideration is as to whether the Authority had any jurisdiction to cancel the bid.The Executive Committee is a statutory functionary. The powers and functions of the authority and the respective committees concededly are governed by the provisions of the statute, but, then the jurisdiction of the Executive Committee is limited. It was confined to rejection or acceptance of the tender. The Authority exercises a larger power. For the said purpose we would assume that the Authority had no incidental or ancillary power, but there cannot be any doubt or dispute that the Executive Committee could not cancel the entire tender. It could not have caused any change in the entire scheme or policy. It could not make alterations in the methodology of tender. It could not have gone into the working of the project. It also could not have gone into the question as to whether the project would be financially viable if the method of calculation is changed.23. Strong reliance has been placed by Mr. Nariman on Marathwada University v. Seshrao Balwant Rao Chavan [(1989) 3 SCC 132 : AIR 1989 SC 1582 ] to contend that as therein the power of the Vice Chancellor and the Executive Council was different, the formers power could not have been exercised by the latter. We do not dispute the proposition of law laid down therein.24. We would assume that the power of the Executive Committee and the Authority under the Act are different and the latter for all intent and purport could not usurp the functions of the former. But in this case, it has not been so done. Jurisdiction of the Authority being larger, and the power to cancel the tender being not vested in the Executive Committee, the action on the part of the former was neither illegal nor without jurisdiction.As noticed hereinbefore, we have proceeded on the basis that the powers of the Executive Committee and the Authority are separate and distinct and we have pointed out that the powers vested in the Executive Committee being limited, the decision taken by the Authority cannot be said to be illegal.Noticing some of the areas where judicial review would be permissible, this Court opined that ordinarily, this Court would not enforce specific performance of contract where damages would be adequate remedy. It was also held that conduct of the parties would also play an important role. The expansive role of Courts in exercising its power of judicial review is not in dispute. But as indicated hereinbefore, each case must be decided on its own facts.e next question which arises for consideration is as to whether any reason was required to be assigned.A power to deal with a contractual matter and a power of a statutory authority to exercise its statutory power in determining the rights and liabilities of the parties are distinct and different. Whereas reasons are required to be assigned in a case where civil or evil consequences may ensue, the same may not be necessary where it is contractual in nature, save and except in some cases, e.g., Star Enterprises (supra).We have noticed hereinbefore that power has not been exercised by the Executive Committee in rejecting the tender. The power has been exercised by the Authority in canceling the tenders so as to enable it to have a re-look of the entire project. Some reasons may be required to be assigned for rejecting the bid, but in the instant case, in our opinion, no reason was required to be assigned as there has been a change in the policy decision. The news item appearing in the Economic Times is not of much significance. No affidavit has been affirmed as regards the correctness or otherwise of the said news item. It may be true that the Authorities at one point of time, as was disclosed in the Counter Affidavit, had thought of setting up a Convention Centre of their own and without any private participation, but only because there has been a deviation from the said stand would not, in our considered opinion, render the entire policy decision vitiated in law. It had set up its Evaluation Committee. The decision presumably has been reached by experts.38. The reasons as regards purported unsatisfactory performance of Appellants, take a back seat once having a re-look to the entire situation was thought of. It is not a case where the Court is called upon to exercise its equity jurisdiction. It is also not a case where ex facie the policy decision can be held to be contrary to any statute or against a public policy. A policy decision may be subjected to change from time to time. Only because a change is effected, the same by itself does not render a policy decision to be illegal or otherwise vitiated in law.However, if the Court in a given situation is not in a position to allow a bid to take place before, it may not still venture to strike down an Act in the name of public interest, although, no such public interest exists. Appellant stated before us that he is ready and willing to take a part of the contract, viz., construction of the C&EC and pay the same amount as has been done by Reliance Industries Ltd. and in addition it would pay 2.5% of its annual turnover from the Convention Centre from the 21st year, as was initially offered.42. Appellant did not participate in the second bid. The tender process is complete. Before us only a higher bid has been given. We do not intend to enter into the intricacies of the question. Appellants could have submitted its bids pursuant to the new tender and new conditions, even without prejudice to its rights and contentions in this appeal. The stipulations made in 2002 tender could have been repeated by it so as to demonstrate before the experts comprising members of the Executive Committee that its bid was the highest. If, in view of the change in the policy decision, the Authority does not intend to become a partner in the profit making and opt for having the entire bid amount at one go instead of waiting for 20 years, we do not find any fault therewith.Appellant complains that whereas the bid of Sister concern of Reliance Industries Ltd. was very low, now it has offered a bid of Rs.1104,00,00,111/-. From the chart placed before us it would appear that there had been a stiff computation. The Reliance Industries Ltd. has become the highest bidder. Its competitors had taken part in the earlier contracts. No mala fide in accepting the tender has been alleged nor do we find any.