Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 343 (GAU)

Ameya Developers Private Ltd. v. State of Assam

2006-04-07

ANIMA HAZARIKA, B.S.REDDY

body2006
JUDGMENT B.S. Reddy, C.J. Background Facts: 1. The Chief Engineer, PWD (Roads), Assam, on behalf of the Government of Assam, invited bids for the standard bidding documents for 'construction of Flyover at Six Miles at the junction of G.S. Road and Rupkonwar Jyotiprasad Agarwalla Road under City Roads Division No. II' at the estimated cost of Rs. 39,14,43,000/- (Rupees thirty nine crore fourteen lakhs and forty three thousand). 2. The writ Appellant company and as well as the 4th Respondent, a construction company, submitted their bids in response to the said tender notice dated 30.5.2005. That in terms of the instructions to bidders, bids were to be submitted in two envelopes containing technical bid and price bid. 3. On 18.6.2005, envelopes containing the technical bids were open in the presence of the parties and upon evaluation of the technical bids, both the parties were required to attend the office of the Chief Engineer, PWD (Roads) on 26.7.2005 in connection with opening of envelopes containing the price bids. It was found that between the two parties, the Appellant's bid was the lowest (L1) with the price bid of Rs. 39,14,43,000/- (Rupees thirty nine crore fourteen lakhs and forty three thousand). The price bid offered by the 4th Respondent company was Rs. 50,00,00,000/- (Rupees fifty crore) and thus was the second lowest (L2). 4. The Appellant asserts that the Bid Evaluation Committee made its recommendations for awarding the contract in favour of the Appellant being the lowest responsive evaluated bidder. The Tender Committee on 5.7.2005 rejected the bid of the Appellant on the ground that the Appellant does not satisfy the eligibility criteria as laid down in Clause 4.5(A)(b) of the Instructions to Bidders (for short "ITB"). On 14.9.2005, the Tender Committee decided to offer the contract to the 4th Respondent at a value of 3.98% above the estimated costs, which works out to Rs. 40,70,22,431.00 (Rupees forty crore seventy lakhs twenty two thousand four hundred thirty one). The Government of Assam, PWD vide its letter dated 14.9.2005 conveyed the recommendations of the Tender Committee to the 3rd Respondent who, in turn, vide letter dated 15.9.2005 issued Letter of Intent to the 4th Respondent. Thereafter on 3.10.2005 a contract agreement was executed and the final work order was accordingly issued. 5. The Government of Assam, PWD vide its letter dated 14.9.2005 conveyed the recommendations of the Tender Committee to the 3rd Respondent who, in turn, vide letter dated 15.9.2005 issued Letter of Intent to the 4th Respondent. Thereafter on 3.10.2005 a contract agreement was executed and the final work order was accordingly issued. 5. The case set up by the Appellant is that after opening of the technical and price bid, there was no option for the employer but to accept its bid being the lowest evaluated responsive bid, which is lower by over 10 crore (Rupees ten crore) than the bid of Rs. 50 crore (Rupees fifty crore) offered by 4th Respondent. It is contended that the employer instead of awarding the contract to the Appellant had chosen to award the work to the 4th Respondent in secretive manner after unilaterally entering into the negotiation with the 4th Respondent. The decision, according to the Appellant, is not only arbitrary but also actuated by malice in law. 6. The simple case set up by the Respondents is that against the qualifying conditions as laid down in Clause 4.5(A)(b) the Appellant on its own accord disclosed in its bid that it had satisfactorily completed the work of similar nature to the tune of Rs. 2200.50 lakhs only as against the required amount of Rs. 2622.6681 lakhs. Such being the position the Appellant does not meet the eligibility criteria as laid down in Clause 4.5(A)(b) of the ITB. That the technical bid of the Appellant itself ought to have been rejected but inadvertently the office of the Chief Engineer misconstrued the eligibility conditions and accordingly opened the financial bid of the Appellant That after preparing the comparative statement the employer forwarded the same along with all the papers in original to the Tender Committee. It is at that stage the Scrutiny Committee detected the mistake committed by the office of the Chief Engineer in concluding as if the Appellant was technically qualified. The Scrutiny Committee recorded its finding to the effect Clause 4.5(A)(b) being a mandatory eligibility condition cannot be relaxed and the financial bid could not have been opened. The entire records together with the findings so recorded by the Scrutiny Committee were placed before the Tender Committee for its consideration. The Scrutiny Committee recorded its finding to the effect Clause 4.5(A)(b) being a mandatory eligibility condition cannot be relaxed and the financial bid could not have been opened. The entire records together with the findings so recorded by the Scrutiny Committee were placed before the Tender Committee for its consideration. The Tender Committee in its meeting on 5.7.2005 having recorded its own finding rejected the bid of the Appellant on the ground that it did not meet the eligibility criteria as laid down in Clause 4.5(A)(b) of the ITB. 7. The ultimate duty to evaluate the bids and make its recommendation as regards the substantially responsive bids is with the Tender Committee. The bonafide mistake committed in opening financial bids of the Appellant by the employer itself would not confer any right upon the Appellant to insist for awarding the work in its favour. Both the Scrutiny Committee and the Tender Committee on a careful analysis of the materials available on record including the data furnished by the Appellant found the Appellant to be ineligible as it failed to satisfy the eligibility criteria laid down in Clause 4.5(A)(b) of the ITB. 8. The Appellant herein has challenged the decision of awarding contract to the 4th Respondent on the grounds referred to hereinabove. The learned Single Judge having meticulously examined all the contentions raised by the Appellant in the writ petition found no merit whatsoever in any one of them and accordingly dismissed the writ petition. Be it noted, the learned Single Judge meticulously examined the entire materials available on record including the bids offered by the Appellant as well as the 4th Respondent and upon such examination came to the conclusion that the Appellant does not satisfy the eligibility criteria as provided for in Clause 4.5(A)(b) of ITB. The learned Judge accordingly held that in view of such findings no other question would survive for any decision in the matter. Submissions: 9. In this appeal the learned senior counsel Shri. Mishra D.K. appearing on behalf of the Appellant submitted that the decision making process in awarding the contract to the 4th Respondent is totally vitiated for more than one reasons. Submissions: 9. In this appeal the learned senior counsel Shri. Mishra D.K. appearing on behalf of the Appellant submitted that the decision making process in awarding the contract to the 4th Respondent is totally vitiated for more than one reasons. The decision taken by the Evaluation Committee and accepted by the employer in accordance with the terms of the contract came to be overruled and reviewed by the Tender Scrutiny Committee whose existence is not even recognized in the contract documents. The said Committee in no manner could have interfered in the decision making process and with the discretion exercised by the employer. It was further contended that the writ Appellant satisfies the eligibility criteria under Clause 4.5(A)(b) of ITB and the view taken by the decision makers in this regard in holding that the Appellant does not satisfy the criteria is erroneous one. 10. Shri N. Dutta, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the 4th Respondent submitted that the Appellant does not satisfy the eligibility criteria under the said Clause on its own showing. He further submitted that the initial view taken by the employer to open the financial bid under mistaken impression as if the technical bid the Appellant satisfies the eligibility criteria itself would not confer any rights upon the Appellant for accepting the financial bid. The mistake always can be rectified. It was submitted that the technical bid offered by the Appellant cannot be characterized as a substantially responsive one to the requirement of the bidding documents. It was submitted that the decision making process cannot be divided into watertight compartment and what is required is the pragmatic evaluation of the whole of the decision making process. The learned senior counsel further contended that none of the authorities exercised any statutory powers under any given provisions of law and therefore the doctrine of ultra vires in strict sense cannot be applied while judicially reviewing the decision making process in the matter of awarding the contract. 11. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions made during the course of hearing of the writ appeal. Perused the entire records. Question Requiring Decision: 12. The question that falls for our consideration is whether the Tender Scrutiny Committee overruled and reviewed the decision of the employer as contended by the learned Counsel for the Appellant. 11. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions made during the course of hearing of the writ appeal. Perused the entire records. Question Requiring Decision: 12. The question that falls for our consideration is whether the Tender Scrutiny Committee overruled and reviewed the decision of the employer as contended by the learned Counsel for the Appellant. Whether there was any final and irrevocable decision taken as such by the employer as regards the technical bid of the Appellant. Relevant Clauses: 13. It may be just and necessary to notice a few relevant clauses of ITB before we proceed further to consider the submissions in order to determine as to whether the decision making process in awarding the contract is visited for any reason whatsoever. 14. Clause 4.5(A)(a)(b) which is relevant for the present purposes, reads as under: 4.5(A) To qualify for award of the contract, each bidder in its name should have in the last five years, i.e. 1999-00, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04. (a) Achieved a minimum annual financial turnover (in all classes of civil engineering construction works only) of 100% of the estimate cost of the package (cost of completed works of previous years shall be given weight age of 10% per year base on rupee value to bring them to present price level in any one year. (b) Satisfactory completed (not less than 100% of contract value), as a prime contractor at least one similar work of value not less than amount indicated in Appendix (not less than 67% of estimated value of contract) Committees operating in the field: 15. Clause 23 provides for opening of the bids and it says that the employer will open all the bids received (except those received late) in the presence of the bidders or their representatives, who choose to attend at the date, time and place specified. Envelops containing the technical bids shall be opened and the amounts, form and validity of the bid security furnished with each bid will be announced. If the bid security furnished does not conform to the amount and validity period as specified and has not been furnished in specified form, the remaining technical bid and the sealed financial bid is required to be returned to the bidders. If the bid security furnished does not conform to the amount and validity period as specified and has not been furnished in specified form, the remaining technical bid and the sealed financial bid is required to be returned to the bidders. That immediately after receipt of the clarification, if any, in terms of Clause 23.4(i), (ii), (iii) the Evaluation Committee will finalize the lists of responsive bidders whose financial bids are eligible for consideration. Thereafter the financial bid shall be opened and at the time of opening the names of technically responsive bidders shall be announced. The financial bids of only those bidders are to be opened. Clause 26 in its turn provides for examination of bids and determination of the responsive bids. Clause 31 provides for award criteria. The employer will award the contract to the bidders whose bids have been determined to be substantially responsive to the bidding documents and who has offered the lowest evaluated bid price etc. The employer is also required to notify the other bidders that their bids have been unsuccessful. 16. Now we shall take up the contention regarding the role played by the Committee constituted to examine comparative statements and tender papers etc. pertaining to various schemes under PWD before placing the same before the Tender Committee. The Committee so constituted shall hereinafter be referred to as "Scrutiny Committee" for the sake of brevity. The Government of Assam vide its order dated 12.10.2004 constituted a Committee comprising the Deputy Secretary, PWD (NH) as its Chairman with under Secretary, PWD (NH) (Planning) (Commn.) and (Building) as Member. The Committee is to be further assisted by the concerned EEs/A Es of the concerned Branch of the Chief Engineer's office who are to be called for in due time for their assistance. The duty of the Committee is to furnish comparative statement wise observation to facilitate the Tender Committee for recommending the works. Be it noted that the said Committee has been constituted purely as an administrative measure to assist the Tender Committee in its task of evaluating the bids for the purposes of making its recommendation to the Government. The origin, functions and its duties are not traceable to any statute. The Committee is required to perform functions, which are purely administrative if not clerical in nature, which renders necessary help and assistance to the ultimate decision makers in the matter of awarding contract. The origin, functions and its duties are not traceable to any statute. The Committee is required to perform functions, which are purely administrative if not clerical in nature, which renders necessary help and assistance to the ultimate decision makers in the matter of awarding contract. 17. The Government of Assam vide its Notification dated 29.3.2001 in supersession of its earlier notification reconstituted the "Tender Committee" in respect of the NH/NEC/Border Roads/State Roads/all building works to examine all tender for works amounting to Rs. 25 lakhs only and above and furnish its recommendations for approval by the Government. It further provides that the Chief Engineer for the concerned work to send comparative statement 2/3 days ahead of the meeting of the 'Tender Committee" and shall attend the meeting as one of its member. As is evident from the Notification even the duty of "Tender Committee" is to examine all the tenders and furnish its recommendations. The ultimate decision in the matter of awarding of contract is that of the Government. It is not as if the Government is bound by the recommendations of the 'Tender Committee'. The 'Scrutiny Committee' prepares comparative statement wise observation to facilitate the 'Tender Committee' for recommending the work and the Tender Committee makes its recommendations. The business discharged by both the Committees is purely administrative in its nature. 18. Now a word about the "Evaluation Committee" spoken to by Clause 23.4(iv) in ITB. It says that the Evaluation Committee will finalize the lists of responsive bidders whose financial bids are eligible for consideration. The Committees referred to hereinabove and their respective roles must be clearly understood and properly appreciated in order to consider the submissions made by the learned senior counsel attacking the role played by the 'Scrutiny Committee'. The Clauses incorporated in ITB must be read as a whole, they cannot be divided and demarcated into watertight compartments. Chapter E in ITB deals with bid opening and evaluation. It contains Clauses from 23 to 30 and all of them must be read together. From a fair reading of clauses in Chapter E in ITB it would be evident that it is the duty of the employer to open all the bids received including the modifications, if any, made in the presence of the bidders or their representatives. The employer shall first open the envelopes containing technical bids. From a fair reading of clauses in Chapter E in ITB it would be evident that it is the duty of the employer to open all the bids received including the modifications, if any, made in the presence of the bidders or their representatives. The employer shall first open the envelopes containing technical bids. Subject to bids satisfying certain requirements as provided for bids security shall be taken up for evaluation with respect to the qualification information and other information furnished by the bidders. The Evaluation Committee on receipt of the clarification, if any, as provided for will finalize the lists of responsive bidders whose financial bids are eligible for consideration. Thereafter the envelops containing the financial bids together with modifications to financial bids, if any, shall be opened and the names of bidders found responsive in accordance with Clause 23.4(iv) will be announced. The responsive bidders' names, the bid prices, the total amount of each bid, any discounts, bid modifications and withdrawals and such other details as the employer may consider appropriate, will be announced by the employer at the opening. Any bid price or discount, which is not read out and recorded, is not to be taken into account in bid evaluation. PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED: 19. During the detailed evaluation of the technical bid, the employer will determine whether each bid (a) meets the eligibility criteria defined in Clause 3 and 4, (b) has been properly signed; (c) is accompanied by the required securities and (d) substantially responsive to the requirement of the bidding documents. During the detailed evaluation of the "financial bids" the responsiveness of the bids will be further determined with respect to the remaining bid conditions i.e., priced bill of quantities, technical specifications, and drawings. If a financial bid is not substantially responsive, it will be rejected by the employer and may not subsequently be made responsive by correction or withdrawal of the nonconforming deviation or reservation. Thereafter the employer will evaluate and compare only the bids determined to the substantially responsive in accordance with Sub-clause 26.2. If a financial bid is not substantially responsive, it will be rejected by the employer and may not subsequently be made responsive by correction or withdrawal of the nonconforming deviation or reservation. Thereafter the employer will evaluate and compare only the bids determined to the substantially responsive in accordance with Sub-clause 26.2. The employer thereafter is to award the contract to the bidder whose bid has been determined (i) to be substantially responsive to the bidding documents and who has offered the lowest evaluated bid price; and (ii) to be within the available bid capacity adjusted to account for his bid price which is evaluated the lowest in any of the packages opened earlier than the one under consideration. In no case, the contract shall be awarded to any bidder whose available bid capacity is less than the evaluated bid price, even if the said bid is lowest evaluated bid. The contract will in such cases be awarded to the next lowest bidder at his evaluated bid price. 20. That a bare reading of all the Clauses in Chapter E in clear and unmistakable terms indicates the primary and predominant role assigned to the employer who is none other than the Chief Engineer as defined in ITB. It is he who opens the technical bid as well as the financial bid and it is he who determines as to whether the bids are responsive or not. It is he who determines whether each bid satisfied the eligibility criteria as provided for etc. The composition of the so-called Evaluation Committee, which is expected to finalize the lists of responsive bidders whose financial bids are eligible for consideration, is not spoken to by ITB. It is obviously an insignificant Committee which is constituted from time to time depending upon the exigencies and mainly consists of personnel working in the office of the Chief Engineer, PWD (Roads). The so-called Evaluation Committee cannot be equated to that of 'Scrutiny Committee' and the 'Tender Committee' constituted under two different orders of the State Government. The preparation of the lists of responsive bids by the Evaluation Committee is complementary to the main role and the duty required to be discharged by the employer. The Evaluation Committee is obviously a creation by the employer himself with a view to receive proper assistance in the matter of detailed evaluation of technical bids and financial bids. The preparation of the lists of responsive bids by the Evaluation Committee is complementary to the main role and the duty required to be discharged by the employer. The Evaluation Committee is obviously a creation by the employer himself with a view to receive proper assistance in the matter of detailed evaluation of technical bids and financial bids. There is nothing wrong or illegality in 'Scrutiny Committee' constituted by the Government either to prepare a separate comparative statement of the bids or to express its opinion as regards the lists of responsive bids prepared by the Evaluation Committee. Eventually, the view of the employer who is an integral part of the Evaluation Committee and as well as the view of the 'Scrutiny Committee' is required to be placed before the Tender Committee for preparing its own view and recommendation to the Government which is the ultimate decision maker in the matter of awarding the contract. 21. The bidding documents/tenders submitted by the intending bidders are subjected to scrutiny and analysis by more than one Committee with a view to ensure the transparency and accountability in the matter of awarding the contract. The concept of "checks and balance" is put into operation with a laudable object to ensure and assure the decision making process to be fair. Viewed from such perspective the role played by the 'Scrutiny Committee' cannot be characterized as an alien one. It is not an intruder into the decision making process. "Evaluation Committee" spoken to by ITB and the role played by it cannot be put at higher than that of the role played by the 'Scrutiny Committee'. Both are complementary to each other and there is no conflict in their respective roles. The mistake, if any, made by one can always be rectified by the other so as to be placed before the Tender Committee. 22. Reverting to the contention that the 'Scrutiny Committee' undertook to review the recommendations made by the employer is totally unsustainable. The employer is entitled to rectify his mistakes and he accordingly rectified the moment the error in his view was pointed out by the 'Scrutiny Committee'. The contention that the Tender Committee is outside the ITB is equally untenable since the Tender Committee is a permanent mechanism created by the State Government to receive assistance whenever it decides to award contract where stakes involved are high. The contention that the Tender Committee is outside the ITB is equally untenable since the Tender Committee is a permanent mechanism created by the State Government to receive assistance whenever it decides to award contract where stakes involved are high. It is the Government, which invited the tender through one of its officer and for the sake of convenience such officer is named as employer. The decision ultimately is that of the Government. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no merit in the submission that an unauthorized Committee intruded into the decision making process and influenced the employer to change his views in the matter. 23. The next question that falls for our consideration is whether the Appellant satisfies the eligibility criteria? The Appellant on its own showing satisfactorily completed as a prime contractor similar work of value of Rs. 2200.50 lakhs only. It does not satisfy the requirement of satisfactorily completing as a prime contractor, at least one similar work of value not less than 67% of estimated value of contract. There is no dispute raised about the same even by the Appellant. The contention is that weightage of 10% into 5 years i.e., 50% weightage is to be given to the value of the works done by the Appellant in the year 1999; if the calculation is so made on that basis, according to the Appellant, 50% of Rs. 2250 lakhs would be Rs. 1125 lakhs and if the weightage of Rs. 1125 lakhs is added in terms of Clause 4.5(A)(a), the value of the previous work done by the Appellant should be computed as Rs. 2250 lakhs + Rs. 1125 lakhs = Rs. 3375 lakhs. The simple contention urged that as in the case of Clause 4.5(A)(a) weightage of 10% per year based on rupee value to bring to present price level in any one year should equally be made applicable to the satisfactorily completion of one similar work of value not less than 67% of estimated value of the contract. The contention is totally misconceived. That so far as the annual financial turn over is concerned, it should be 100% of the estimated cost of the package as provided for in Clause 4.5(A)(a) and it is for that reason the inflation factor has been taken care of by adding weightage of 10% per year based on rupee value. The contention is totally misconceived. That so far as the annual financial turn over is concerned, it should be 100% of the estimated cost of the package as provided for in Clause 4.5(A)(a) and it is for that reason the inflation factor has been taken care of by adding weightage of 10% per year based on rupee value. In fact, similar benefit is extended by prescribing the satisfactorily completion of one similar work of value not less than 67% of estimated value of contract. The inflation factor is well taken care by prescribing only 67% of estimated value of contract and not 100% as in the case of annual financial turn over. The Appellant cannot insist for adding further weightage. There is neither any reason nor any logic in the contention urged by the Appellant. Misconceived contention is accordingly rejected. The view taken by the Scrutiny Committee and the Tender Committee as has been finally accepted by the Government is not vitiated for any reason whatsoever. OUR VIEW: 24. The proposition that even a decision to award contract must be arrived at after taking into account all relevant considerations and eschewing irrelevant considerations and that the reasons for awarding the contract must be self-evident cannot for a moment be doubted. But it would be futile to contend that the reasons for awarding the contract must find place in the order itself and those reasons cannot be supplemented or culled out from the records. The proposition is required to be properly understood and appreciated. The decision to award the contract is not the one where the evidence is first gathered and the decision is later arrived at one fine morning to be incorporated in a reasoned order. That in the matter of awarding the contract several factors are independently and separately weighed and counter weighed and considered, of course in accordance with the predetermined norms. The decision and the reasons for the decision to award the contract are required to be necessarily gathered by looking at the entire course of events and circumstances stretching over the period right from ITB to the taking of the final decision to award the contract. The decision and the reasons for the decision to award the contract are required to be necessarily gathered by looking at the entire course of events and circumstances stretching over the period right from ITB to the taking of the final decision to award the contract. That in the matter of award of contract neither a statutory functionary nor a statutory function as such is involved but the whole transaction bears a commercial though public character which can only be awarded after protracted discussions, clarification and consultation in which more than one individual and more than one committee are involved. 25. We have perused the records and critically examined every stage of decision-making process, which ultimately culminated in the award of contract and the same discloses that relevant considerations are not ignored and, indeed were taken into account by the decision maker. No irrelevant consideration has been taken into consideration. PARAMETERS OF JUDICIAL REVIEW: 26. Parameters of judicial review in the matter of awarding the contract are too well known and needs no restatement at our hands. This Court after an elaborate survey of authoritative pronouncements held: While considering the issue we shall bear in mind that the Courts have entertained applications for judicial review to determine whether a decision to enter into a contract violated any of the substantive principles of public law developed by the Courts to control abuse of power. The principles deducible from the long catena of decisions are that the courts accepted that the substantive public law principles developed by the courts to control power such as reasonableness, relevancy, purpose and procedural fairness-may be relevant to the exercise of contractual power by public authority. That every applicant in a judicial review proceeding in order to succeed has to show that the decision maker has acted illegally, irrationally or in a manner which is procedurally unfair. The central tenet of judicial review, however, is that it is just that: review and not appeal. The court is required to consider whether the authority acted ultra vires or made an error of law, or whether it took into account irrelevant considerations, or failed to taken into account relevant considerations, whether it acted in bad faith or with an improper motive. The Court will not act as an appellate body, and will not over turn a decision simply because it disagrees with the decision. [See Escorts Ltd. and Ors. The Court will not act as an appellate body, and will not over turn a decision simply because it disagrees with the decision. [See Escorts Ltd. and Ors. v. International Tractors Ltd. and Ors. 2006 (1) GLT 222 27. This Court will not interfere with the decision making process on hyper technical grounds ignoring cumulative effect of relevant components in the decision making process. The judicial review of commercial decision raises no new constitutional issues. The grounds of judicial review in the matter of awarding contract are no more open textured. What is or is not illegal, irrational, or procedurally unfair has been clearly laid down long ago. Commercial players may have to dust down their notes on judicial review for it is no more a 'strange beast' now entering their midst. The combination of powerful corporate interests and changing rules on standing has lead some to predict that a new, public interest model of judicial review is emerging. Thus Rawlings argues that not only will judicial review proceedings tip further in the direction of collective legal action, "but that increasingly they will be populated by a compendium of powerful repeat players concerned to ensure that relevant precedents do not cut across collective interests and further to use litigation strategically in the development of long term policy strategies." [See R. Rawlings, "Courts and Interests" in I. Loveland (ed), A Special Relationship? American Influences on Public Law in the U.K. (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1995), 113). One may anticipate the powerful commercial actors will increasingly seek judicial review in an attempt affect the operation of economic processes by securing strategically important decisions and interpretation of legal rules and other regulatory instruments. This will require the Courts to engage to an even greater extent with the existing systems of commercial operations, and in places develop a better understanding of them. It is the court's duty to discourage tactical litigation. Our statement and restatement of law is no reason to suppose that the growth in commercial judicial review will stop and many reasons to suggest that it will continue. It will continue as long as the corporate players and the legal fraternity endowed with forensic skills continue to influence the course of events. Our statement and restatement of law is no reason to suppose that the growth in commercial judicial review will stop and many reasons to suggest that it will continue. It will continue as long as the corporate players and the legal fraternity endowed with forensic skills continue to influence the course of events. The liberalization of standing rules and the increasing awareness of pressure groups, companies and their legal advisors, of the potential benefits to be gained from seeking review are all likely to be factors in that expansion. MALICE IN LAW: 28. Further contention that the decision making process is vitiated by malice in law is equally untenable. The decision, in the instant case, was not arrived at by a single individual in the secrecy of his chamber. The bids were scrutinized at more than one stage by different Committees and decision to award the contract was based on the recommendation made by the Tender Committee consisting of more than one individual from different departments. There was complete openness of discussions and deliberations. Nothing is attributed even by the Appellant to any particular decision maker as such. Legal malice or malice in law means' something done without lawful excuse'. In other words 'it is an act done wrongfully and wilfully without reasonable or probable cause, and not necessarily an act done from ill feeling and spite'. It is a deliberate act in disregard of the rights of others. (See Words and Phrases Legally Defined, 3rd Edition, London Butterworths, 1989). 29. The malice in law means the authorities have acted unreasonably or on improper grounds. Again and again, it is laid down that powers must be exercised reasonably and in good faith. But in this context 'in good faith' means merely 'for legitimate reasons'. Contrary to the natural sense of the words, they impute no moral obliquity (See Prof. Wade and Forsyth, Administrative Law, Ninth Edition). 30. The pithy statement of Lord Vaughan Williams may be aptly be recalled: you are acting mala fide if you are seeking to acquire land for a purpose not authorized by the Act. [See Westminster Corporation v. London and North Western Railway Co. (1904) 1 Ch. 759 at 767] 31. Wade and Forsyth, Administrative Law, Ninth Edition). 30. The pithy statement of Lord Vaughan Williams may be aptly be recalled: you are acting mala fide if you are seeking to acquire land for a purpose not authorized by the Act. [See Westminster Corporation v. London and North Western Railway Co. (1904) 1 Ch. 759 at 767] 31. We have expressed our view in the proceeding paragraph that the decision making process in awarding the contract to the 4th Respondent cannot be said to be unreasonable, arbitrary of vitiated for any reasons whatsoever. The argument based on malice in law should accordingly fail. CONCLUSION: 32. For all the aforesaid reasons, we find no merit in this writ appeal and the same shall accordingly stand dismissed with direction to the parties to bear their own costs. Appeal dismissed