'Ground Reality Today Is That Almost No Tender Remains Unchallenged': Supreme Court Reemphasizes Limited Scope Of 'Tender Jurisdiction'

The ground reality today is that almost no tender remains unchallenged, the Supreme Court remarked in a judgment delivered on Friday (17 September 2021).The bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy observed that the enlarged role of the Government in economic activity and its corresponding ability to give economic 'largesse' was the bedrock of creating what is commonly called the 'tender jurisdiction'.The objective was to have greater transparency and the consequent right of an aggrieved party to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the court said.The bench observed that judicial review of such contractual matters has its own limitations. The bench quoted the following principles laid down in Tata Cellular v. Union of India 1994 SCC (6) 651:(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 other 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 this case, the Government of Tamil Nadu had invited a tender in the matter of production and supply of polyester based hologram excise labels on turnkey basis. The stickers were to be pasted across the caps of bottles of liquor sold by the State Government through one of its instrumentalities, the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation. Two of the prospective tendering parties, viz., M/s. Kumbhat Holographics and M/s. Alpha Lasertek India LLP (for short 'Alpha') filed writ petitions in this matter. Though the single bench dismissed the writ petition, the division bench allowed it. The Division bench found that that tender conditions were tailor-made in favour of some companies. Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court observed that the Division Bench has fallen into an error in almost sitting as an appellate authority on technology and commercial expediency which is not the role which a Court ought to play.The following important observations have been made in the judgment:The ground reality today is that almost no tender remains unchallenged.1. The enlarged role of the Government in economic activity and its corresponding ability to give economic 'largesse' was the bedrock of creating what is commonly called the 'tender jurisdiction'. The objective was to have greater transparency and the consequent right of an aggrieved party to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (hereinafter referred to as the 'Constitution'), beyond the issue of strict enforcement of contractual rights under the civil jurisdiction. However, the ground reality today is that almost no tender remains unchallenged. Unsuccessful parties or parties not even participating in the tender seek to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Public Interest Litigation ('PIL') jurisdiction is also invoked towards the same objective, an aspect normally deterred by the Court because this causes proxy litigation in purely contractual matters. Principles of equity and natural justice have to stay at a distance2. The judicial review of such contractual matters has its own limitations. It is in this context of judicial review of administrative actions that this Court has opined that it is intended to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, bias and mala fide. The purpose is to check whether the choice of decision is made lawfully and not to check whether the choice of decision is sound. In evaluating tenders and awarding contracts, the parties are to be governed by principles of commercial prudence. To that extent, principles of equity and natural justice have to stay at a distanceUnsuccessful tenderers with imaginary grievances3. We cannot lose sight of the fact that a tenderer or contractor with a...

'Ground Reality Today Is That Almost No Tender Remains Unchallenged': Supreme Court Reemphasizes Limited Scope Of 'Tender Jurisdiction'

Ashok KM

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

'Ground Reality Today Is That Almost No Tender Remains Unchallenged': Supreme Court Reemphasizes Limited Scope Of 'Tender Jurisdiction'

Ashok KM

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers