Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of Dipankar Datta, CJ and G.S. Kulkarni, J., addressed an issue in light of the principles of judicial review explained that the Government must have freedom of contract.
“…fair play in the joints is a necessary concomitant for an administrative body, functioning in an administrative sphere or quasi-administrative sphere.”
Factual Matrix
Petitioner was awarded a contract by the respondent – Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation for a period of 5 years of the work of mechanized housekeeping and multi-purpose services in its health centres, which came to be terminated in 2017 due to non-satisfactory performance.
Issue in the Writ Petitions
- Fresh Tender issued for the same work but with a pre-qualification criterion that an eligibility condition providing that “the contractors whose work contract is terminated due to unsatisfactory services or are blacklisted would not be eligible to participate in the tender”
Arbitration Proceedings
On being aggrieved with the termination of contract, arbitration proceedings by the petitioner were initiated against the Corporation.
Petitioner’s Case
Petitioner’s case that if the petitioner is held to be ineligible by application of the said note in Clause 4(g) of the pre-qualification criteria, it would lead to a consequence that the petitioner cannot participate in such contracts of the Corporation although the petitioner is not blacklisted or debarred and yet is being prohibited to participate in such re-tender.
Discussion and Conclusion
Question that falls for determination in the present matter are:
(I) Whether the Municipal Corporation is entitled in law to impose a pre-qualification criterion as contained in Condition 4(g) (supra) to the effect that ‘the contractors whose work contract is terminated due to unsatisfactory services are not eligible to participate in the tender’?
(II) Whether imposing such impugned condition would amount to blacklisting of the petitioner?
In the present matter, while considering the facts and circumstances of the case, Bench discusses some vital points with respect to:
- legal principles on the authority of the State and its instrumentalities to enter into contracts and
- Principles of Judicial Review.
Power of Judicial Review is exercised to rein in unbridled executive functioning.
It is not the function of the Court to act as a super board, or with the zeal of a pedantic school master substituting its judgment for that of the administration. The duty of the court is to confine itself to the question of legality of the tender process on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution.
It is not for the Court to determine whether a particular policy or particular decision taken in the fulfillment of that policy is fair. The only concern should be with the manner in which such decision have been taken.
On what grounds is the Judicial Review classified:
Firstly, Illegality: This means the decision-maker must understand correctly the law that regulates his decision-making power and must give effect to it;
Secondly Irrationality, namely, Wednusbury unreasonableness, that is when a decision which is so outrageous in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at. The decision is such that no authority properly directing itself on the relevant law and acting reasonably could have reached it.;
Thirdly Procedural impropriety. The Court does not sit as an appellate authority over the tendering authority, but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made.
Bench in view of the above-stated expressed that the terms of the invitation to tender cannot be open to judicial scrutiny as an invitation to tender is in the realm of contract.
Further, it was added that the Government must have freedom of contract. Principles laid above are enunciated in the Supreme Court decision of Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651.
With respect to taking a review of the authorities and more particularly on the prescription and adherence of essential conditions has laid down principles of judicial review in the Supreme Court decision of BSN Joshi &. Sons Ltd. v. Nair Coal Services Ltd., (2006) 11 SCC 548.
High Court elaborating more, added that the freedom to arrive at legitimate terms and conditions in inviting public offers cannot in any manner be taken away.
Cherished principles of free play in the joints and the liberty to choose a contractor, on terms and conditions fixed by the tendering authority in public interest, cannot be taken away.
Court would not have any expertise to sit in appeal over the tender conditions, the role of the Court is triggered only qua the decision-making process.
Moving forward, Bench examined whether Corporation acted either malafide or arbitrarily with material illegality in having a condition to restrict participation of a bidder whose contract is terminated due to unsatisfactory services?
It was noted that the said condition was applicable to all the bidders and not just to the petitioner. The corporation made it clear with its condition that it did not desire a party whose work was unsatisfactory in the past to get onboard again, hence in Court’s opinion, the said condition became imperative, considering the nature of the contract.
Hence, Corporation’s condition was in no manner arbitrary and illegal. Therefore, Corporation was entitled in law to impose pre-qualification criteria as it did.
Second Question
Imposing of impugned condition resulted in blacklisting the petitioner from participating in the tender in question?
Bench in light of the above question noted that a contractor cannot be blacklisted for having breached the terms and conditions of the contract unless a fair hearing was accorded to the party being blacklisted in due adherence to the principles of natural justice.
In Court’s Opinion, the present case is not the one wherein the petitioner can be said to be blacklisted by the Corporation.
In fact, the petitioner’s case is of an implied blacklisting by the Corporation by prescribing of a pre-bid criteria that a contractor whose work contract is terminated due to unsatisfactory performance is not eligible to participate in the tender.
Hence, present case is not of blacklisting.
It is also fallacious for the petitioner to label such condition as a condition of an implied blacklisting of the petitioner in future tenders to be issued by the Corporation. This is only a presumption of the petitioner.
Concluding with the decision, High Court held that the petitions failed and were accordingly rejected. [BVG India Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 412, decided on 19-03-2021]
Advocates before the Court:
Mr. V. A. Thorat, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ashutosh M. Kulkarni and Mr. Sarthak S. Diwan for the Petitioner.
Mr. Sandeep Marne, for the Respondents.
Mr. P. P. Kakade, Government Pleader with Ms .R.A. Salukhe, AGP for State.
