Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 803 (GAU)

Z. Rulho v. State of Nagaland

2013-11-15

N.CHAUDHURY

body2013
JUDGMENT N. Chaudhury, J. 1. The decision making process of settlement of a contract for construction of District Judicial Court Building, Mokokchung (Ground floor) at Mokokchung in favour of the private respondent No. 5 by order dated 19.06.2013 followed by work order dated 25.06.2013 has been challenged in this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This writ petition being the third in the series of litigations regarding same contract work resulting in stalling of the work for a period over two years last against public interest, it is necessary to state the background facts at the thresh hold. Pursuant to an NIT issued in the month of March 2011 by the Executive Engineer, CA WD, Office of the Commissioner, Nagaland for construction of District Judicial Court Building at Mokokchung Town the present petitioner (Sri Z. Rulho), the private respondent No. 5 (M/s. Allied Construction) and another submitted sealed tenders. While the tender papers of the petitioner and the respondent No. 5 were found in order, the same of the third bidder was found to be defective and as such he was disqualified. Both the petitioner and the respondent No. 5 quoted same rate at per with the SOR 2010. Thereafter, the authority by order dated 28.07.2011 conveyed approval for settlement in favour of the petitioner and consequently a work order was issued in his favour on 12.08.2011. The said settlement of contract in favour of the petitioner was challenged by the present respondent No. 5 before this Court in WP(C) No. 206/2011 and this Court by order dated 25.11.2011 quashed the said settlement with a direction to the Law Department for taking a fresh decision in the matter of awarding the contract for constriction of the aforesaid building, pursuant to the aforesaid NIT issued, by inviting both the petitioner and the respondent No. 6 therein for negotiation. The respondent No. 6 referred to above was the writ petitioner in the present writ petition. 2. However, after the matter went back to the Government for reconsideration by way of negotiation, the Parliamentary Secretary of the Government interfered and allegedly at his instance, this time also the settlement was made in favour of the present petitioner. So, the present respondent No. 5, as petitioner, filed the second writ petition before this Court challenging the decision vide WP (C) No. 53(K)/2012. So, the present respondent No. 5, as petitioner, filed the second writ petition before this Court challenging the decision vide WP (C) No. 53(K)/2012. In the said writ petition, the Government is also stated to have filed a Misc. Case being CMC No. 30 (K)/2012 seeking permission to issue fresh tender. However, this Court by the judgment and order dated 12.03.2012 asked the Government to abide by the previous order of this Court and to take up the matter by the Law Department for negotiation with the parties. In the same judgment, it was observed that in spite of specific direction by this Court to the Law Department in the earlier judgment dated 25.11.2011, the Law Department did not hold any negotiation and that negotiation, if any, was really held by the Parliamentary Secretary and as such said exercise was not in compliance of the order of this Court. The writ petition was accordingly allowed on 12.03.2012. This time after receipt of the second judgment of this Court, the Principal Secretary in the Department of Law invited the parties to his chamber for holding negotiation on 28.03.2012 wherein both the petitioner and the respondent No. 5 are stated to have been present. 3. The facts leading to this third round of litigation with regard to the same contract work started with the negotiation process conducted by the Principal Secretary Law and Justice, Government of Nagaland on 28.03.2012. Both the parties appeared before the said authority when the representative of the Kichu clan of Mokokchung village claimed that the land on which the construction is proposed to be made belongs to the Kichu clan and their representative firm, namely, respondent No. 5 herein, has the right to be considered for awarding the contract failing which the work would be delayed. On the other hand the petitioner argued that one Supangwati was initially authorised by the land owner clan and that is the reason for awarding contract in favour of the respondent although both the parties quoted same rate. The Secretary found that following facts had emerged in course of the negotiation:- (i) The work was awarded on the basis of the limited tender based on the NIT. The Secretary found that following facts had emerged in course of the negotiation:- (i) The work was awarded on the basis of the limited tender based on the NIT. (ii) That the system of land ownership and compensation in the District Head Quarters of Mokokchung is not well settled and hence the claims of land owners continue to play role in the matter of awarding contract; (iii) None of the parties are willing to settle the matter amicably; and (iv) The original project cost was Rs. 1.55 crores but pursuant to directive of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on standardization order structure of the District Courts in the country the cost has been revised to Rs. 4.15 crores which is many times higher than the original project cost. 4. Under such circumstances, the Principal Secretary of the Department of Law was of considered view to delink the land compensation component from awarding of contract and thought if fit to ask the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner to ascertain the legality of the claims of the land owners so as to make an outright purchase of the land by the department if the land is not a Government land. It was further decided by the Principal Secretary, Law that the revised project work would be re-tendered to select a competent party in view of the fact that the project in question involves a major work and that the component of compensation claim of the land owners would not meet the best public interest. The relevant part of the decision of the Principal Secretary, Law as recorded in the minutes of the proceedings held on 28.03.2012 which occurs at Annexure-21 of affidavit-in-opposition submitted by the respondent No. 5, is quoted below:- Considering the facts that the land compensation issue is critical to the issue and the revision of the cost of project by more than 250% is not technically tenable to go ahead with the original project cost of Rs. 1.55 crores, it would be better to delink the land compensation with the awarding of construction work. The DC Mokokchung would be asked to ascertain the legality of the claims of the landowner to make an outright purchase of the land by the Department if it is not falling under the Government Owned land. 1.55 crores, it would be better to delink the land compensation with the awarding of construction work. The DC Mokokchung would be asked to ascertain the legality of the claims of the landowner to make an outright purchase of the land by the Department if it is not falling under the Government Owned land. The revised project work would be re-tendered to select the competent party as this work seems to be a major work and the unsettled state of land ownership would not meet the best interest of the District Court. 5. Pursuant to the said decision of the Government in the Department of Law and justice as referred to above, a letter was issued to the Deputy Commissioner, Mokokchung on 19.04.2013 seeking clarification as to whether the land is free from encumbrances in view of the fact that there was a demand of compensation from the side of the landowners. The jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner was also asked to explore possibility of finding out an alternative site in the same vicinity so that expeditious construction may materialize avoiding the tussle between the two firms vying for contract resulting in multiplicity of litigations. The Deputy Commissioner in his reply dated 26.04.2013 ruled out possibility of finding out an alternative site in the vicinity and further pointed out that the Kichu clan which claims ownership of the land had already furnished no objection certificate to District Administration Authority to construct the building in question. It emerges from the same letter that notwithstanding such no objection, the 'usual practice' of claiming commission from contractor does exist even in the present case. However, the Deputy Commissioner suggested the Government 'to advise the contractor to carry out the work at the earliest possible'. 6. Be that as it may, the decision given by the Principal Secretary Department of Law on the asking of this Court vide judgment dated 25.11.2011, though was apparently endorsed by the Government but for which CMC No. 30(K)/2012 was filed by the Government yet it appears that in the long run the Government for reasons not disclosed, changed its stand and the impugned order dated 19.06.2013 was issued under the signature of an Additional Secretary of the same department conveying that the work in question be awarded to the present respondent No. 5 as per authorization of landowners (Kichu clan)'. The last line of the same letter contains information 'This is (sic) the approval of the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Nagaland'. Thereby the concerned Executive Engineer, CAWD Kohima was requested to issue work order. 7. This letter of the Government has been immediately brought under challenge in this writ petition on 8.7.2013. During the pendency of the writ petition and before filing of affidavit-in-opposition by the respondent No. 5, the Learned Government Advocate appears to have brought attention of this Court to the fact that a consequent work order had already been issued on 25.06.2013 and a copy thereof was made available both to this Court as well as the Learned Senior Counsel representing the writ petitioner. Thereupon, the writ petitioner submitted an additional affidavit on 26.9.2013 challenging the consequential work order dated 25.06.2013 as well and claimed that the settlement in favour of the respondent No. 5 be set aside and fresh tender be issued as per the opinion of the Principal Secretary in the Department of the Law and Justice. The respondent No. 5, as indicated above, submitted an affidavit-in-opposition on 07.10.2013. The Government respondents arraigned as the respondents No. 1 to 4 who are supposed to be the real stake holders chose not to submit any affidavit. 8. I have heard Mr. C.T. Jamir, Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. Mr. T. Pongener appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 5 and pressed the affidavit-in-opposition on record. Mr. V. Suokhrie, the Learned Government Advocate represented respondents No. 1 to 4. The said Learned Counsel supported the private respondent No. 5. No record has been by the produced by the Government. 9. Mr. C.T. Jamir learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that very decision making process in settlement of the contract in question is vitiated by arbitrariness, unreasonableness and extraneous consideration. The consideration of public interest has not at all found place in the process and the jurisdictional authority abdicated its power in favour of the sweet will of the Hon'ble Chief Minister and the so-called decision making process has turned out to be a mere sham. The consideration of public interest has not at all found place in the process and the jurisdictional authority abdicated its power in favour of the sweet will of the Hon'ble Chief Minister and the so-called decision making process has turned out to be a mere sham. The learned counsel drew my attention to the minutes of the meeting held in the chamber of the Principal Secretary, Law and Justice, Government of Nagaland on 28.03.2012 when it came to light that the project being a major one and considerable escalation of prices having taken place already, it would be just, proper and in the public interest to re-tender the contract so as to select the best and most competent one. However, there is nothing on record to hold that such opinion of the Head of the Department in the State had at all received any consideration and rather his subordinate, namely, an Additional Secretary of the Department issued the impugned order directing the settling authority to issue work order in favour of the respondent No. 5. The said letter itself is indicative of the fact as on whose instance was the order passed, the learned Senior counsel would argue. The learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tejas Constructions & Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. Vs. Municipal Council, Sendhwa reported in (2012) 6 SCC 464 and the case of Michigun Rubber (India) Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2012) 8 SCC 216 to argue the scope of judicial review. 10. Per-contra, Mr. Pongener learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 argued that the Government considered the interest of the land owners in making settlement since both the eligible bidders quoted the same rate and this is how the respondent No. 5 was settled with the contract. According to the learned counsel no illegality, arbitrariness or unreasonableness was committed by the Government in taking into consideration the ground reality as to claim of the land owning clan. The learned counsel heavily relied on Annexure 22 and 24 of the affidavit-in-opposition submitted by the respondent No. 5. The Annexure 22 is the letter dated 19.04.2013 issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government of Nagaland to the Deputy Commissioner, Mokokchung pursuant to the negotiation held on 28.03.2012 and the same has been discussed above. Annexure-24 relied on by the learned counsel Mr. The Annexure 22 is the letter dated 19.04.2013 issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government of Nagaland to the Deputy Commissioner, Mokokchung pursuant to the negotiation held on 28.03.2012 and the same has been discussed above. Annexure-24 relied on by the learned counsel Mr. Pongener is the reply dated 26.04.2013 given by the Deputy Commissioner in respect of Annexure-22. 11. Mr. V. Suokhrie, the learned Government Advocate extended whole hearted support to Mr. Pongener and submitted that the Government did not commit any arbitrariness in making settlements in favour of the respondent No. 5. It has been argued that if the settlement is not given to respondent No. 5, the land owners would not permit the work to go on and in the process the project shall fail. Moreover, no alternative land is available in the vicinity which can be used for making construction of the Court Building. Finally, the learned Government Advocate would argue that the petitioner does not have any legally enforceable vested right to claim settlement and as such the writ petition merits dismissal and the interim order directing the parties to maintain status quo is liable to be vacated forthwith so that the respondent No. 5 can make the construction in public interest. 12. Since, the Government did not file affidavit and did not produce records it was not possible to verify the statement of the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner as to whether really there was any relinquishment of claims by the landowners in favour of the Government and if so whether such relinquishment was with or without condition. Had there been any unqualified relinquishment of the landowners then, perhaps, by operation of the principle of bona vacantia as recognized under Article 296 of the Constitution of India, the claim of compensatory settlement in favour of the landowners or the private respondent No. 5 would have become unsustainable. Nothing has been produced either from the side of the Government or from the side of respondent No. 5 to arrive at a finding that there was a contract between the so-called landowners and the Government for awarding of contract so as to compensate the land owners. Nothing has been produced either from the side of the Government or from the side of respondent No. 5 to arrive at a finding that there was a contract between the so-called landowners and the Government for awarding of contract so as to compensate the land owners. Moreover, even if such an arrangement could have been brought on record the question still would have remained as to whether such an arrangement would be hit by arbitrariness, unreasonableness or extraneous consideration in administrative action of settling a contract work involving public interest. 13. Upon hearing the learned counsel of the parties and on perusal of the materials on record, it appears that the basic question to answer in this case would be as to whether consideration of the claim of land owners for getting settlement vis-a-vis public interest, fair play in executive action and reasonableness can be held to be extraneous one and if so whether the impugned decision should be interfered with by way of judicial review. 14. To answer the questions, it would be profitable to have a look at the nature and character of the power exercised by Executive in making a settlement of Government Contract involving public interest. Article 298 of the Constitution expressly provides that the Executive Power of the Union and of each State shall extend to the carrying on of any trade or business and the acquisition, holding and disposal of property and the making of contracts for any purpose. Article 299(1) which is pari materia Section 175(3) of the Government of India Act, 1953 lays down the manner and method by which such power prescribed under Article 298 should be exercised. Since, such an exercise is an act by or on behalf of the State the same is bound to stand the test of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. The State action should be reasonable, should be fair and should not be based on extraneous consideration. Public interest should be the only consideration in making such exercise. Now, let us proceed to examine the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard. 15. In the case of Mahabir Auto Stores & Ors. Vs. Indian Oil Corporation & Ors. Public interest should be the only consideration in making such exercise. Now, let us proceed to examine the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard. 15. In the case of Mahabir Auto Stores & Ors. Vs. Indian Oil Corporation & Ors. reported in (1990) 3 SCC 752 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court for the felt need to observe that fair play in executive action while making settlement of Government contract is an essential facet. It is held that every action of the State in exercise of its power must be informed by reason failure to which may be questioned as arbitrary exercise. The State exercises executive power under Article 298 of the Constitution in entering or not entering in contracts with individual parties and hence Article 14 of the Constitution would apply. It is further held that every executive action must be subject to Rule of law and must be informed by reason and that Rule of reason and rule against arbitrariness and discrimination involves rules of fair play. Even though the rights of the citizens are in the nature of contractual rights, the manner, the method and motive of a decision of entering or not entering into a contract are subject to judicial review on the touchstone of reasonableness, fair play, natural justice, equality and non elimination in the type of the transactions and nature of the dealing. 16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while deciding the case of Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India reported in (1994) 6 SCC 651 laid down the principles governing State action in making settlement in exercise of power under Article 298 of the Constitution of India. In paragraph 94 of the judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that while the Government has the freedom of contract, 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 but must be free from arbitrariness, not affected by bias or actuated by mala fides. 17. In the case of Raunaq International Ltd. Vs. However, the decision must not only be tested by the application of Wednesbury Principle of reasonableness but must be free from arbitrariness, not affected by bias or actuated by mala fides. 17. In the case of Raunaq International Ltd. Vs. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. reported in (1999) 1 SCC 492 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the same principle governing exercise of executive power under Article 298 of the Constitution and power of the judicial review and highlighted the need for consideration of 'substantial pubic interest' involved in the matter. The Hon'ble Court has also ventured to define elements of public interest in paragraph 10 of the same judgment and extract of the same is quoted below:- 10. What are these elements of public interest? (1) public money would be expended for the purposes of the contract. (2) The goods or services which are being commissioned could be for a public purpose, such as, construction of roads, public buildings, power plants or other public utilities. (3) The public would be directly interested in the timely fulfillment of the contract so that the services become available to the public expeditiously, (4) The public would also be interested in the quality of the work undertaken or goods supplied by the tenderer. Poor quality of work or goods can lead to tremendous public hardship and substantial financial outlay either in correcting mistakes or in rectifying defects or even at times in redoing the entire work thus involving larger outlays of public money and delaying the availability of services, facilities or goods, e.g. a delay in commissioning a power project, as in the present case, could lead to power shortages, retardation of industrial development, hardship to the general public and substantial cost escalation. 18. The consideration of larger public interest and avoidance of arbitrariness have been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in settlement of contract in the case of Reliance Airport Developers (P.) Ltd. Vs. Airport Authority of India reported in (2006) 10 SCC 1 . 19. The nature and character of the exercise of power under Article 298 of the Constitution received further consideration of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Air India Ltd. Vs. Cochin International Airport Ltd. reported in (2000) 2 SCC 617 . Paragraph 7 of the said judgment may be relevant for the purpose of the present case. The same is quoted below:- 7. Cochin International Airport Ltd. reported in (2000) 2 SCC 617 . Paragraph 7 of the said judgment may be relevant for the purpose of the present case. The same is quoted below:- 7. The award of contract, whether it is by a private party or by a public body or the State, is essentially a commercial transaction. In arriving at a commercial decision considerations which are paramount are commercial considerations. The State can choose its own method to arrive at a decision. It can fix its own terms of invitation to tender and that is not open to judicial scrutiny. It can enter into negotiations before finally deciding to accept one of the offers made to it; price need not always be the sole criterion for awarding a contract. It is free to grant any relaxation, for bona fide reasons, if the tender conditions permit such a relaxation. It may not accept the offer even though it happens to be the highest or the lowest. But the State, its corporations, instrumentalities and agencies are bound to adhere to the norms, standards and procedures laid down by them and cannot depart from them arbitrarily. Though that decision is not amenable to judicial review, the Court can examine the decision-making process and interfere if it is found vitiated by mala fides, unreasonableness and arbitrariness. Even when some defects is found in the decision-making process the Court must exercise its discretionary power under a legal point. The Court should always keep the larger public interest in mind in orders to decide whether its intervention is called for or not. Only when it comes to a conclusion that overwhelming public interest requires interference, the Court should intervene. 20. All the aforesaid views have been revisited by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagadish Mandal Vs. State of Orissa reported in (2007) 14 SCC 517 and formulated the principles involving due exercise of power under Article 298/299 of the Constitution vis-a-vis scope of judicial review in paragraph 22 of the said judgment as follows:- 22. Therefore, a Court before interfering in tender or contractual matters in exercise of power of judicial review, should pose to itself the following questions:- (i) Whether the process adopted or decision made by the authority is mala fide or intended to favour someone. Therefore, a Court before interfering in tender or contractual matters in exercise of power of judicial review, should pose to itself the following questions:- (i) Whether the process adopted or decision made by the authority is mala fide or intended to favour someone. Or Whether the process adopted or decision made is so arbitrary and irrational that the Court can say, 'the decision is such that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could have reached' (ii) Whether public interest is affected. If the answers are in the negative, there should be no interference under Article 226. 21. Having noticed the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court under the circumstances relatable to the case in hand, let the validity of the impugned State action be decided now. Here in this case, the subject of contract is construction of Court Building at the District Head Quarter of Mokokchung. The project involves expenditure to the tune of more than Rs. 4 lacs as per the deliberation of the Principal Secretary as stated above. Once constructed, the building shall cater to the needs of the litigants, the lawyers, the staff and judicial officers. Judiciary being the back bone of a democracy the importance of public interest involved in the project under consideration must be immense. The question is whether this aspect of the matter had at all caught the attention of the settling authority. The settling authority appears to have been swayed away by the claims of the land owners only. It is not understood as to why the Government proceeded to float NIT for construction of a huge building without first acquiring a suitable plot of land keeping in view the aspect of public interest. A faint objection has been sought to be raised from the respondents' side as if there is no means for acquisition of private land in the State of Nagaland. Annexure-22 of the affidavit-in-opposition submitted on behalf of the respondent No. 5 shows that Government was not aware as to whether the land was free from encumbrances and that is why queries were made to the Deputy Commissioner who clarified that there was a claim of land owners. The learned counsel for the respondents sought to indicate that acquisition of private land in the State of Nagaland is neither possible nor is the same in practice. The learned counsel for the respondents sought to indicate that acquisition of private land in the State of Nagaland is neither possible nor is the same in practice. It is argued that in all such circumstances, the land owner is considered to be a stake holder and the same is considered while making settlement of contract for construction on such land. However, neither the learned Government Advocate nor the learned counsel of the respondent No. 5 could give any explanation as to why it was not possible for the Government to go for acquisition of land when there is a valid State law in existence for the purpose. The Nagaland (Requisition and Acquisition) by the Act, 1965 and the Rules framed under it in the year 1968 appear to be in force. The said law provides for requisition and acquisition of private land including power of summery eviction for public purpose. A set of procedure for the purpose is clearly laid down in the Act and the Rules and as such the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents as to impossibility of acquiring public land appears to be unacceptable. Besides, the statement of the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner as to no objection by the land owners in favour of the Government for construction of the Court building, if really is correct, and then the land must have vested in the state by operation of law under Article 296 of the Constitution. Of course, there is no sufficient material on record to come to a finding in this regard although the letter of the Deputy Commissioner has been brought on record as Annexure 24 by none other than the respondent No. 5. Even if the land owners have not relinquished the land in favour of the Government, the Government by applying the principle of eminent domain may very well exercise power under the provisions of the Nagaland (Requisition and Acquisition) by the Act, 1965 and the Rules so as to acquire the land against due compensation. Such an act of the Government may put an end to unnecessary interference by the land owners and in that event, the judicially accepted principles governing settlement of Government contract would be comfortably exercisable. 22. Public interest has been held to be of paramount consideration in settlement of Government contract. Such an act of the Government may put an end to unnecessary interference by the land owners and in that event, the judicially accepted principles governing settlement of Government contract would be comfortably exercisable. 22. Public interest has been held to be of paramount consideration in settlement of Government contract. The elements of the public interest have been articulated in the case of Raunaq International Ltd. (supra). Considering component of compensation to land owner in making settlement of contract means that the price of the land is also included in the contract amount. Ultimately public money is expended for purpose of Court Building and as such the executive is duty bound to see that public money does not get diffused in irrelevant channels. Once the primacy of the claim of land holder is recognized, the right of choice of the settling authority gets fettered and the other elements of public interest such as public money, quality of the construction, the antecedents of contractor in performing similar contract works and above all the time period necessary for completion of the construction, get pushed to the back seat. In short, pubic interest gets adversely affected. The consideration of the claim of the land owners, therefore, in regard to settlement of contract for construction of building on private land is to be held not only contrary to public interest but also an extraneous one for the purpose. 23. In the case in hand the Principal Secretary to the Government of Nagaland in the Department of Law and Justice was directed by this Court in previous rounds of litigation to take a decision by holding negotiation with the parties. As stated above the Principal Secretary accordingly held meetings and finally was satisfied that the project was a major one and as such re-tendering for searching out the best available construction contractor was necessary in the public interest. This aspect of the matter did not figure when the previous litigations were fought. The learned Government Advocate could not explain as to how the Additional Secretary of the same Department who is apparently junior in hierarchy to the Principal Secretary could arrive at a different conclusion. Moreover, it is in record that the same Government by filing Misc. This aspect of the matter did not figure when the previous litigations were fought. The learned Government Advocate could not explain as to how the Additional Secretary of the same Department who is apparently junior in hierarchy to the Principal Secretary could arrive at a different conclusion. Moreover, it is in record that the same Government by filing Misc. Case being CMC No. 30(K)/2012 in the second round of litigation had prayed for leave to re-tender the contract which obviously means that the Government agreed to the proposal of the Principal Secretary in this regard. It is not clear as to what happened thereafter which prompted the Government to take a diametrically opposite stand and issued order directing the Executive engineer to issue work order in favour of the respondent No. 5. Whether the decision communicated by the Additional Secretary was taken after being satisfied that the view of the Principal Secretary was faulty or whether the decision was given at the mere sweet well of the Hon'ble Chief Minister is also neither clear nor is it possible of being ruled out The whole matter is thus far from transparent and so unreasonable. Ultimately, it was the duty of the Government to produce records and to file affidavit for clarifying their stand at least for the purpose of transparency which is also considered to be a facet of reasonableness which is yet another corollary emanating from Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In short, the impugned decision is neither informed by reasons nor does it stand the test of reasonableness, fair play in executive action and finally public interest and as such the case in hand is an appropriate one for invoking the power of judicial review. In this view of the matter the objection raised by the learned Government that the petitioner does not have a legally enforceable vested right to get settlement is not acceptable, After all, the petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for implementation of the recommendation of the Principal Secretary of the department of law and justice for re-tendering in public interest. In the light of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to above the view expressed by the Principal Secretary as referred to above appears to be more convincing, Hence, considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court including the two decisions relied on by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, exercise of the power of judicial review under present fact position appears to be advisable, The submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents, as discussed above are not acceptable. Rather the submission put forward by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner have force. 24. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned decision for according contract in favour of the private respondent by letter dated 19.06.2013 and consequent work order dated 25.06.2013 issuing work order are hereby set aside. The respondents No. 1 to 4 are hereby directed to re-tender the contract pursuant to the recommendation by the Principal Secretary to the Government of Nagaland in the Department of Law and Justice. Considering the urgency as well as public interest involved in the matter, a time frame is required to be given. The respondents shall do the needful within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and order. The parties are left to bear their own cost. Petition allowed