Judgment :- Jawahar Lal Gupta, C.J. Is the appointment of the third respondent as a consultant for the execution of ‘Water Project’ illegal or tainted by malafieds? This is the short question that arises in this case. First, the facts. 2. On February 25, 1997, the Government of India and the ‘Overseas Economic Co-operation Fund’ executed an agreement. The Fund agreed to lend to the Government of India an amount of Eleven Billon Nine hundred Ninety Seven Million Japanese Yen for “the implementation of kerala water Project…” The parties had agreed that ‘the borrower shall authorize kerala Water Authority…to implement the project.” Still further, the borrower was required to “cause the executing agency to employ consultants for the implementation of the project.” 3. Despite the lapse of more than six years, the appointment of the Consultant continues to be a bone of contention. Firstly, the selection was challenged through a ‘PIL’ under Article 226 of the Constitution viz. O.P.No.17793 of 1999. The petition was dismissed. Writ Appeal No. 2595 of 1999 was filed. It had also met with the same fate. It was dismissed vide order dated December 18, 1999. Finally, the SLP (Civil) No.91 of 2000 was dismissed on January 17, 2000. 4. Not withstanding the favorable judicial verdict, the time had taken its toll. The original exercise was abandoned. On May 30, 2000 fresh offers were invited. A global notice inviting tenders was published in various newspapers and even put on the Internet. 5. A total of 27 offers were received. These were evaluated at different levels. Ultimately 5 applicants were short-listed. Out of these 5, respondent No.3 was finally selected. On June 19, 2003, respondent No. 2 executed a contract with the 3rd respondent. It was done with the approval of the State Government. Within a week, on June 24, 2003, the present petition was filed to challenge the appointment of the respondent no. 3 as a Consultant. Ironically, even this petition is also labeled as a ‘PIL’. 6. The petitioner alleges that in the year 1997 global tenders were invited for the execution of the Kerala Water Authority Project. There were allegations against the manner in which the companies were considered. Finally, the Government had decided to abandon the work. Despite the decision to abandon, the project was revived. The 2nd respondent invited tenders. 6. The petitioner alleges that in the year 1997 global tenders were invited for the execution of the Kerala Water Authority Project. There were allegations against the manner in which the companies were considered. Finally, the Government had decided to abandon the work. Despite the decision to abandon, the project was revived. The 2nd respondent invited tenders. The short-listing of companies was done on the basis of the general status and performance of the applicants. Then, detailed bids were called. These were evaluated. The 3rd respondent was selected. However, “the Indian partners of the 3rd respondent, who are executing the work do not possess the expertise, men and resources other than the advance they would get (sic) on approving the contract by the JBIC.” The insinuation appears to be against the ‘Indian Partner.’ However, the petitioner has not impleaded the said Indian Partner as a party in this petition. 7. The petitioner alleges that the estimated cost of the project is Rs. 1,787.45 crores. The consultancy cost is Rs.102 crores. The time fixed for the completion of the project has been reduced from 6 years to 4 years. Thus, even the consultancy charges should have been reduced. However, this has not been so done. Still more, the petitioner alleges that there is 30% reduction in the international component of the consultancy. Thus, even on this count the cost should have been proportionately cut down. It is further alleged that ‘the insistence for inclusion of a Japan based company as its team leader is yet another mode of corruption.” According to the petitioner, the Indian associates of the consultancy are not competent. Awarding of the contract in favour of 3rd respondent “is a dignified form of corruption and enrooted (Sic) through a company having its office in Tokyo.” The procedure laid down by the 2nd respondent for selection of the consultant was “only a ruse for justification of corruption or legalization of the action.” The action is arbitrary and unfair. Thus, the petitioner prays that the selection of the 3rd respondent be quashed. 8. The respondents have filed separate counter affidavits. On behalf of the State of Kerala, the counter affidavit has been filed by the Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department. It has been inter pointed out that the project was initially prepared in the year 1997. Thus, the petitioner prays that the selection of the 3rd respondent be quashed. 8. The respondents have filed separate counter affidavits. On behalf of the State of Kerala, the counter affidavit has been filed by the Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department. It has been inter pointed out that the project was initially prepared in the year 1997. On account of the delay in appointment of the Consultant the implementation had got delayed. Under this project a package of six water supply schemes have to be executed. The objective of the project is to augment and rehabilitate water supply systems and to lay the necessary infrastructure. When completed, the Project will ensure proper drinking water supply to about 43 lakhs of people. 9. The allegations made by the petitioner have been controverted. It has been pointed out that “international consultancy will bring in world-class technological expertise in project design, implementation and monitoring… The KWA (Kerala Water Authority) will ultimately stand to gain through technology transfer and training of its staff as per the terms of the Consultancy Agreement. The advanced tools and techniques which the Consultants will employ in the Project at all stages through design, implementation and monitoring will help reduce the time and cost over runs which are quite normal in several of the projects implemented in the State.” The loan has been given by the JBIC at an interest rate of only 2.1% per annum. The payment has to be made in a period of 30 years. The Authority had taken steps for short-listing of the applicants in conformity with the terms of the agreement. Vide Resolution dated July 25, 2002 the Authority had selected the following 5 companies for consideration out of the 27: “1. M/s. Mott-MacDonald Ltd., U.K. 2. M/s. Tokyo Engineering Consultants Co.Ltd.Japan. 3. M/s. Maunsell Group, Philippines 4. M/s. Montgomery Watson Harza, U.K. 5. M/s. PACT Consortium, Japan (Firms with Grade A; relative ranking not implied)” 10. The decision of the Authority was approved by the State Government vide order dated August 29, 2002. Thereafter, the 5 short-listed companies were called upon to submit technical and financial bids. A criterion for evaluation of the bids was laid down. It was circulated in the form of a letter of invitation and terms of reference. Out of the 5, only three had responded. The assessment was made on the basis of the prescribed criterion. Thereafter, the 5 short-listed companies were called upon to submit technical and financial bids. A criterion for evaluation of the bids was laid down. It was circulated in the form of a letter of invitation and terms of reference. Out of the 5, only three had responded. The assessment was made on the basis of the prescribed criterion. The 3rd respondent was selected. The decision was approved by the Cabinet. The respondent maintains that the action has been taken bonafide and in public interest. The allegations made by the petitioner have been controverted. It is prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. 11. Separate counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent viz. the kerala Water Authority. It is broadly on the same lines as that filed by the 1st respondent. 12. The 3rd respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit. It has not only furnished data with regard to its own credentials but also in respect of its constituents. In a nutshell it is claimed that the firm has a long and varied experience. It has executed various projects in different parts of the world including Asia and India. Its Indian constituents have also got varied experience. Thus, it maintains that the selection made by the State Government and the Authority is legal and valid. 13. The petitioner has filed reply affidavits. He has reiterated the claim as made in the petition. 14. Mr. Poonthottam, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the selection of respondent No.3 is arbitrary and unfair. The criterion adopted by the Authority was not calculated to select the best. It was only calculated to help the Centre for Environment and Development, which is a constituent of the 3rd respondent. Thus, the selection of the 3rd respondent is vitiated. It has been further contended that there was reduction in man months as well as the period from 6 years to 4 years. Thus, even the fee for the Consultant should have been reduced proportionately. In any case, a clause to ensure the there was no claim for escalation should have been incorporated. The claim as made on behalf of the petitioner has been controverted by the learned counsel for the respondents. 15. In view of the contentions as raised by the learned counsel for the parties, the short question that arises for consideration is – Have respondent Nos. The claim as made on behalf of the petitioner has been controverted by the learned counsel for the respondents. 15. In view of the contentions as raised by the learned counsel for the parties, the short question that arises for consideration is – Have respondent Nos. 1 and 2 acted arbitrarily in selecting the 3rd respondent? 16. Admittedly, a global notice inviting tenders was issued on May 30,2002. There was a good response. A total of 27 offers were received. These were evaluated. A short of 5 companies was prepared. These companies were asked to submit their financial and technical bids. However, only three companies had responded and submitted the bids. These were evaluated. Ultimately, the 3rd respondent was select. It is the admitted position that none of the 22 companies, which had been weeded out at the initial stage of short listing, has even submitted a representation to challenge their exclusion. Still further, neither of the two other companies, which had made their offers after the short –listing, has challenged the selection of the 3rd respondent. When considered in totally, it is manifest that none of the applicants has any complaint against either the process of selection or the final result. This is symbolic of the fact that each of the contesting parties was satisfied with the method of assessment and evaluation. The contestants have no grievance against the final result. 17. Despite this factual position, we had called upon the learned counsel for the respondent Authority to produce the relevant record. Mr. Babu Varghese, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent has been forthright. He produced everything that we asked for. The record is reassuring. An illustration would be apt. 18. After the initial process of short-listing, three companies had submitted their bids. These were evaluated. The final report on evaluation has been produced before us. It is a document, which runs into 155 pages. It is taken on record as Mark ‘A’. Not only the criteria but also the score of each of the applicants under different has been recorded. On a perusal, we find that each bid has been assessed under different heads. Even the credentials and performance of the constituents of each of the bidders have been examined at length. In fact, even the performance of the employees including their qualification etc. Have been examined and assessed for arriving at the final decision. On a perusal, we find that each bid has been assessed under different heads. Even the credentials and performance of the constituents of each of the bidders have been examined at length. In fact, even the performance of the employees including their qualification etc. Have been examined and assessed for arriving at the final decision. On the basis of the criterion adopted by the Authority, the 3rd respondent was selected. The final report on evaluation on technical bids is a comprehensive document. On a consideration of the matter, it is apparent that the examination of the data has been objective and through. The decision making process does not cast any doubt about its fairness. 19. It was contended by the counsel that despite reduction in man months as well as the period for the completion of the project form 6 years to 4 years, the fee had not been proportionately reduced. In any case, a clause to ensure that there was no claim for escalation should have been incorporated. These are matters for mutual settlement between the parties. The writ court cannot fix the fee for a consultancy. In any case, nothing has been pointed out by the learned counsel to even prima facie show that it is exorbitant. Thus, no ground for the intervention of this court is made out. 20. The petitioner alleges that the selection was made malafide and is based on extraneous considerations. 21. The simple question is – Was anyone interested in the 3rd respondent? Who acted malafide? The petition gives no answer. Even at the hearing, nothing specific has been pointed out. Despite this and keeping in view the fact that substantial amount of money is involved, we have examined the matter at considerable length. On a perusal of the pleadings, it is apparent that there is no specific allegation. No concrete or definite allegation has been made against any of the parties. No verifiable fact, which may show any lack of bonafides, has been pointed out. Wholly vague averments have been made in the petition. There is no supporting material. It is easy to make such allegations. However, the court needs proof. On the basis of such vague averments the plea of malafides cannot be sustained. 22. It is true that direct evidence may not always be available. Wholly vague averments have been made in the petition. There is no supporting material. It is easy to make such allegations. However, the court needs proof. On the basis of such vague averments the plea of malafides cannot be sustained. 22. It is true that direct evidence may not always be available. Yet, in the present case, there appears to be no reason to even doubt the bonafids of the respondent authorities. In fact, the petitioner’s averments do not inspire confidence. To illustrate: He claims to have “ completed the Engineering Course and is presently working at Trivandrum.” Has he passed the Engineering examination? What job is he doing at Trivandrum? The petitioner has not disclosed. Why? Mr. Radhakrishnan, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent, expressed a suspicion that the petitioner may not have passed the Engineering examination. Even the counsel for the petitioner did not know the exact position. Still more, except painting everyone black with one brush, the petitioner has really not placed any material on record to either establish his own credentials or to substantiate his allegations. On consideration, we do not feel satisfied that the petition has been filed bonafide. 23. Today, it is undoubtedly true that the country faces a devaluation of values. The evil of corruption has crept into the system. Yet, we cannot censor, complain and criticize everyone. We cannot decry and disparage every action. We must not place everything under a microscope to find some fault. We must use the critical faculty to correct errors and not to pull down everyone and everything. Finding faults all the time can only be a formula for failure. 24. The ‘PIL’ was envisaged as cure for the ‘ills’. It is now degenerating into a means of exploitation. It is being abused. The present case is a clear instance. The project, which was commenced in 1997, has been delayed. It has not got off the ground in six years. The cost would have obviously escalated. The so-called public Interest Petitions have only harmed the public interest. 25. No other point has been raised. In view of the above, we find no merit in this petition. It is consequently, dismissed.