TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1553X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the Clause is only applicable when there is only one private berth operator. It appears to us that the intention is that when a port is started, if the first berth for a specific cargo is awarded in favour of one private operator then he cannot be permitted to bid for the next berth for the same type of cargo. However, once there are more than one private operators operating in the port then any one of them can be permitted to bid even for successive berths. In the present case, as pointed out above there already 5 private operators other than the first consortium. In view of the above discussion we are clearly of the view that the High Court erred in interpreting the Clause in the manner which it is done. As explained above, the Clause will apply only when there is single private operator operating a single berth. Once there are more than one private operators then the Clause will not apply - Civil Appeal No. 3422 of 2017 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 23241 of 2016) With Civil Appeal No. 3424 of 2017 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 23695 of 2016) - - - Dated:- 1-3-2017 - Madan B. Lokur And Deepak Gupta, JJ. JUDGMENT Deepa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . It would also be pertinent to mention that specific cargo in this very Policy has been defined to be (i) containers, (ii) liquid, (iii)dry bulk. Letter of Award was issued in favour of the appellant of the first Consortium by the Paradip Port Trust on 29.02.2016. 4. Aggrieved by this action, the second consortium filed a writ petition before the Orissa High Court. The submission of unsuccessful bidders was that since the first consortium was already operating a berth for dry cargo it could not have submitted its application to bid for the berth in question which is also admittedly meant for dry cargo. It was contended that as per the policy quoted above, if a private operator is operating a berth he cannot be allowed to bid for the next berth for handling the same cargo in the same port. This contention of the original writ petitioners was accepted by the Orissa High Court which interpreted the Policy clause by holding that the word next in the Clause indicated that a private operator cannot take part or bid for next successive berth for the same cargo. The High Court, therefore, held that the application for the first consortium JSW Infrastructure Limited, was wrongly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... careful consideration to the arguments. This Court in Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs. International Airport Authority of India (1979) 3 SCC 489 held that the words used in documents cannot be treated to be surplusage or superfluous or redundant and must be given some meaning and weightage. It was held as follows:- ......It is a well-settled rule of interpretation applicable alike to documents as to statutes that, save for compelling necessity, the Court should be prompt to ascribe superfluity to the language of a document and should be rather at the outset inclined to suppose every word intended to have some effect or be of some use . To reject words as insensible should be the last resort of judicial interpretation, for it is an elementary rule based on common sense that no author of a formal document intended to be acted upon by the others should be presumed to use words without a meaning. The court must, as far as possible, avoid a construction which would render the words used by the author of the document meaningless and futile or reduce to silence any part of the document and make it altogether inapplicable. This view has consistently held the field and was recen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evaluation of tenders and awarding contracts are essentially commercial functions and if the decision is bonafide and taken in the public interest the superior courts should refrain from exercising their power of judicial review. In the present case there are no allegations of mala fides and the appellant consortium has offered better revenue sharing to the employer. 11. In Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd . Anr. 2016 SCC Online SC 940 This Court held as follows :- 14.....a mere disagreement with the decision making process or the decision of the administrative authority is no reason for a constitutional Court to interfere. The threshold of mala fides, intention to favour someone or arbitrariness, irrationality or perversity must be met before the constitutional Court interferes with the decision making process or the decision. xxx xxx xxx 16. We may add that the owner or the employer of a project, having authored the tender documents, is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements and interpret its documents. The constitutional Courts must defer to this understanding and appreciation of the tender doc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
