Case: M/S. Master Marine Services Pvt. Ltd Vs. Metcalfe &amp; Hodgkinson Pvt. Ltd.

2. The second respondent, Container Corporation of India (for short CONCOR) floated a limited tender in December 2003 for hiring professional services for survey of containers and cargo at Inland Container Depot (for short ICD), Tughlakabad, Delhi, for a period of 24 months. The contract was to be awarded through a two bid process. The first part was to consist of Pre-Qualification Bid, which was to be accompanied by various documents showing experience, constitution of the firm/company, turn over for past three years, a copy of the license to act as surveyor/loss assessor under the Insurance Act, 1938, besides other matters and earnest money in the form of bank draft/pay order. The second part was to consist of the Financial Bid. The technical bid was to be opened on 15.12.2003 and the financial bid was to be opened on 28.2.2004. After opening the technical bid, the CONCOR pre-qualified two bidders, viz., the appellant and the first respondent. Thereafter, the financial bid was opened. The bid of the appellant was Rs.3.00 per container while that of the first respondent it was Rs.3.75 per container and as the appellants bid was 25 per cent lower than that submitted by the first respondent, its bid was accepted and the work was awarded to it. The first respondent initially filed Writ Petition (C) No.3687 of 2004 before the Delhi High Court challenging the eligibility of the appellants to participate in the tender process, mainly on the ground that the appellant did not have a license to act as a surveyor/loss accessor under the Insurance Act, 1938, and in support of this submission it was urged that on an earlier occasion, the bid submitted by the appellant had been rejected on the said ground. The High Court summarily dismissed the writ petition by observing that in the meanwhile the appellant might have obtained the requisite license and the court cannot be asked to undertakes a roving or fishing enquiry as it is for the appropriate authority to consider and decide the matter in accordance with law. The special leave petition preferred by the first respondent against the said order was also dismissed by this Court on 5.5.20043. Thereafter, the first respondent filed another writ petition on 27.5.2004 praying that the order passed by the second respondent awarding the contract of survey of containers and cargo at ICD, Tughlakabad, Delhi and ancillary facilities to the appellant pursuant to the tender notice dated 15.12.2003 be quashed and a writ of mandamus be issued to the second respondent to award the said contract to it (first respondent). The main plea taken in the writ petition was that the appellant did not meet the eligibility criteria as it did not have a licence to act as surveyor/loss assessor under the Insurance Act, 1938. In the counter affidavit filed by the CONCOR, it was pleaded that both the appellant and the first respondent did not fulfill the conditions mentioned in the eligibility criteria in the tender. However, clause 12 of the Instructions regarding submission of tender provided that the CONCOR had the power to relax the tender conditions and exercising power under the said clause, it had qualified both the bidders in public interest. It was further submitted that the appellant had submitted copy of license from the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (for short IRDA) in the name of Percy Meher Master. The appellant had clarified that the said license had been issued in the name of Capt. Percy Mehar Master in his capacity as proprietor of Master Marine Services. Subsequently, the said proprietorship concern had been converted into a private limited company, of which Capt. Percy Meher Master was appointed as Chairman. The Tender Evaluation Committee (for short TEC) had deliberated upon the said fact and after taking into consideration the fact that the appellant was known to be an established surveyor doing work of number of shipping lines and that Capt. Percy Meher Master had been appointed as Chairman of the Company by its Board, the tender committee took a decision that the financial bids of both the bidders be opened. The first respondent had enclosed two IICL certificates, but the same were not in conformity with the tender conditions. It was further pleaded that the major work (98%) under the contract is of data entry i.e. recording of container number, seal number, condition of seal and external condition of container on arrival and dispatch of containers from the ICD for which the appellant had quoted Rs.3.00 per container against Rs.3.75 of the first respondent and for such kind of work no license under IRDA is required. Having regard to the fact that the bid offered by the first respondent for external survey of a container, which is the main work, was 25 per cent higher than that of the appellant, the work was awarded to the appellant4. The appellant also filed a counter affidavit stating that Capt. Percy Mehar Master started a sole proprietorship business of marine and cargo surveyors by the name of Master Marine Services in February, 1983. He had in his name a license to act as a surveyor/loss assessor under the Insurance Act, 1938. As over the years the business had considerably increased, a private limited company by the name of Master Marine Services Pvt. Ltd. was formed on 6.10.1997, which took over the entire business of the proprietorship concern. The main object of the company is to carry out ship, cargo and marine surveys and to act as loss assessors and technical consultants. In the company 40.02 per cent shares are held by Capt. Percy Meher Master and the remaining shares are held by his wife, son and daughter and all four of them are directors in the company. It was also stated that an agreement was entered into on 15.10.1997, whereunder Capt. Percy Meher Master who is the Chairman and Managing Director of the company, would be employed as a consultant with the company and he will sign all survey reports on behalf of the company. Besides this, several other pleas were also taken including a plea that the second writ petition was barred by the principles of res judicata and Order 2 Rule 2 CPC as an earlier writ petition filed by the first respondent had already been dismissed by the High Court and the special leave petition preferred against the said order had also been dismissed5. The High Court after a detailed examination of the material on record held that the appellant had failed to fulfill an essential pre-qualification norm as it did not have a license to act as surveyor/loss assessor in its name under the Insurance Act. It was further held that the second respondent, the CONCOR was bound to observe the eligibility criteria scrupulously and consequently the bid of the appellant could not be entertained. It was accordingly held that the decision of the CONCOR to accept the tender of the appellant being violative of the equity clause of the Constitution, suffers from the vice of arbitrariness and, therefore, could not be sustained. The High Court accordingly allowed the writ petition filed by the first respondent and quashed the award of contract of professional services made in favour of the appellant. It was, however, directed that in view of the fact that the appellant had already commenced the work, it could continue to do the work assigned under the contract till the CONCOR reconsidered the bid submitted by the first respondent. It was further directed that it will be open to the CONCOR to negotiate with the first respondent the bid price and if they are satisfied with their offer, the contract shall be awarded to them, failing which fresh tenders may be invited.

Reasoning:
The tender document shows that the CONCOR had adopted a two bid process for making selection and award of the contract. The first part consisting of pre-qualification bid required submission of documents to show proof of experience, deposit of earnest money, constitution of the firm/company, turn over for past three years, proof in support of having employed at least 20 persons including IICL certified supervisors for preceding three years. The second part related to financial bid and this was to be considered only for such tenderers who were short-listed in the pre-qualification bid. Para 2(g) which has been quoted above, only required a copy of license to act as surveyor/loss assessor under Insurance Act, 1938. It may be noted that the tender document does not say that in case where a company has made a bid, the license to act as surveyor/loss assessor under the Insurance Act must be in the name of the company itself or that a license personally in the name of the Chairman or a Director of a Company would not be treated as a valid compliance of the requirement of tender. Para 11 of the Instructions is important. The CONCOR reserved the right to amend the tender document, if considered necessary, with due intimation to the respective tenderers prior to the last date of tender submission. The CONCOR also reserved the right to relax the tender conditions at any stage,if considered necessary, for the purpose of finalizing the contract in the overall interest of the CONCOR and the trade9. The principles which have to be applied in judicial review of administrative decisions, especially those relating to acceptance of tender and award of contract, have been considered in great detail by a three Judge Bench in Tata Cellular vs. Union of India AIR 1996 SC 11 . It was observed that the principles of judicial review would apply to the exercise of contractual powers by Government bodies in order to prevent arbitrariness or favouritism. However, it must be clearly stated that there are inherent limitations in exercise of that power of judicial review. Government is the guardian of the finances of the State. It is expected to protect the financial interest of the State. The right to refuse the lowest or any other tender is always available to the Government. But, the principles laid down in Article 14 of the Constitution have to be kept in view while accepting or refusing a tender. There can be no question of infringement 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 that power will be struck down. (See para 85 of the reports)After an exhaustive consideration of a large number of decisions and standard books on Administrative Law, the Court enunciated the principle that the modern trend points to judicial restraint in administrative action. The Court does not sit as a court of appeal but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made. 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. The Government must have freedom of contract. In other words, a fairplay 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 principles of reasonableness but must be free from arbitrariness not affected by bias or actuated by mala fides. It was also pointed out that quashing decisions may impose heavy administrative burden on the administration and lead to increased and unbudgeted expenditure. (See para 113 of the reports)12. The law relating to award of contract by State and public sector corporations was reviewed in AIR India Ltd. vs. Cochin International Airport Ltd. 2000(2) SCC 617 and it was held that the award of a contract, whether by a private party or by a State, is essentially a commercial transaction. It can choose its own method to arrive at a decision and it is free to grant any relaxation for bona fide reasons, if the tender conditions permit such a relaxation. It was further held that the State, its corporations instrumentalities and agencies have the public duty to be fair to all concerned. Even when some defect is found in the decision making process, the Court must exercise its discretionary powers under Article 226 with great caution and should exercise it only in furtherance of public interest and not merely on the making out of a legal point. The Court should always keep the larger public interest in mind in order to decide whether its intervention is called for or not. Only when it comes to a conclusion that overwhelming public interest requires interference, the Court should interfere13. The only ground on which the High Court has quashed the decision of CONCOR awarding the contract to the appellant is that there was no license to act as surveyor/ loss assessor under the Insurance Act, 1938 in favour of the appellant which is a company. This question was considered by the TEC in its meeting held on 17.1.2004. The TEC also took notice of the fact that there were only two bidders (the appellant and the first respondent) in the tender and it would be desirable to prevent the tender from lapsing into a single bidder tender. After receipt of the reply from the appellant; the TEC again evaluated the tenders for pre-qualification bid and after noting that M/s. Master Marine Services Pvt. Ltd. is known to be an established surveyor doing work for a number of shipping lines at various CONCOR terminals and further that Capt. Percy Meher Master, who had the license, had been appointed the Chairman of the company, made a recommendation that both, the appellant and the first respondent may be qualified for their technical capability. It has to be borne in mind that para 11 of the Instructions clearly conferred a power upon the CONCOR to relax the tender conditions at any stage, if considered necessary, for the purpose of finalizing the contract in overall interest of the CONCOR and the trade. Therefore, having regard to the fact that the Chairman of the company had a license under the Insurance Act, the condition regarding the holding of such a license by the appellant itself, in the fact and circumstances of the case, could be relaxed. So far as commercial considerations are concerned, it is the specific case of the CONCOR, which has not been disputed by the first respondent, that ninety eight per cent of the work under the contract is of data entry of a container, for which the appellant had quoted Rs. 3.00 against Rs.3.75 as quoted by the first respondent and for this kind of work no license under IRDA is required. In such circumstances, no such public interest was involved which may warrant interference by the High Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution while undertaking judicial review of an administrative action relating to award of a contract