Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 685 (JK)

Ravi Fisheries Coop. Society Ltd. v. State

2013-11-27

DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR

body2013
1. Petitioner through the medium of the present petition challenges the advertisement notification No. ADF/K/2013-14/96-104 dt. 26.04.2013, issued by the respondent No.4, for re-auctioning the fishing rights in Ranjit Sagar Reservoir for the year 2013-14. 2. The basis of challenge is that in the earlier bidding process, the petitioner stood at SI.No.4, with a bid amount of Rs.24.50 lacs, whereas the first three bidders had submitted a bid of Rs.52 lacs, 51 lacs and 50 lacs respectively. Having failed to deposit the bid amount by the highest bidders, the respondents were under an obligation to allot the contract to the petitioner who was willing to deposit the bid amount offered by him in terms of the auction notice. 3. Reply has been filed by the respondents wherein a reference has been made to Annexure R.7, which is a decision taken by the respondents on 25th of April, 2013, for re-auctioning the fishing rights. Reference has been made to the said decision to show that the official respondents found a huge gap between the third highest bidder at Rs. 50 lacs and the fourth highest i.e. the petitioner at Rs.24.50 lacs. Keeping in view this huge gap in the bid offer, it was decided to conduct a fresh auction process for the purposes of fishing rights in the said Reservoir seeing the huge potential to earn revenue for the State. The Committee of officers while taking the decision, with a view to ensure that the process of bidding was not sabotaged as in the earlier bidding process, also raised the earnest money requirement from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.2 lacs. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. The scope of judicial review in contractual matters is no longer res Integra. In Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651 , the Apex Court held as under:- "It cannot be denied 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. 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." 6. Another principle of law, which is settled, is that the court while exercising its power of judicial review is not concerned with the merits of the decision but the manner in which the decision was made. It has, thus, drawn a clear distinction between the power of judicial review and the power exercised by courts in an ordinary appeal. While exercising the power of judicial review, the court does not substitute its own decision with that of the decision of the executive as against the power exercised by an appellate forum where it substitutes its own decision on merits for that of the authority taking the decision. 7. While exercising judicial review, the Apex Court in the judgment (supra) determined the parameters as under: "77. The duty of the court is to confine itself to the question of legality. Its concern should be: 1. Whether a decision-making authority exceeded its powers? 2. committed an error of law, 3. committed a breach of the rules of natural justice, 4. reached a decision which no reasonable tribunal would have reached or, 5. abused its powers." 8. These principles of law have further been reiterated in a recent judgment of the Apex Court, Heinz India Private Limited & anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors, (2012) 5 SCC 443 , where the said principles have been followed and reiterated. 9. reached a decision which no reasonable tribunal would have reached or, 5. abused its powers." 8. These principles of law have further been reiterated in a recent judgment of the Apex Court, Heinz India Private Limited & anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors, (2012) 5 SCC 443 , where the said principles have been followed and reiterated. 9. Testing the facts of the present case on the touchstone of the principles aforementioned, I am of the view that the entire decision appears to have been taken by the respondents in fairness and keeping in view the best interest of the State for purposes of earning the maximum revenue. The decision making authority has rightly exercised its discretion and the decision so taken cannot be said to be illegal or against the principles of natural justice. 10. This petition is, accordingly, found to be without merit and is dismissed along with the connected CMA. Interim order dt. 2.5.2013, shall stand vacated.