TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 1624X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erely on ground that another policy would have been fairer and better. In a democracy, it is the prerogative of each elected Government to follow its own policy - Normally, there is always a presumption that the State action is reasonable and in public interest and it is for the party challenging its validity to show that it is wanting in reasonableness or is not informed with public interest. The burden is a heavy one and it has to be discharged to the satisfaction of the court by proper and adequate material. The court cannot lightly assume that the action taken by the Government is unreasonable or against public interest because there are large number of considerations, which necessarily weigh with the Government in taking an action. In Hira Nath Mishra Ors. Vs. The Principal, Rajendra Medical College, Ranchi Anr. [ 1973 (4) TMI 115 - SUPREME COURT] , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that principles of natural justice are not inflexible and may differ in different circumstances. Rules of natural justice cannot remain the same applying to all conditions. It is clear that when there is a failure on the part of the contractor to comply with the express terms of the cont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9-Supply should be same according to the sample deposited at the time of tender, in the short term tender notice. 14. Firms should give an affidavit that there is no Court Case/Vigilance Case/CBI Case pending against the firm. All the documents given in the tender are true. If found false/fake the person who is giving affidavit is fully responsible. Any action taken against person/firms will be accepted. (court case means criminal case against firm/board of director/director/principle stock holder as per relevant laws. 3. While dealing the matter in writ petition No. 3611 (MB) of 2011 and other similar writ petitions, this Court passed an order to enquire in the matter of execution and implementation of National Rural Health Mission in respect of utilization of the funds so given by the Government of India through Union Ministry of Health Family Welfare, New Delhi. In compliance of the said order, Central Bureau of Investigation had registered the case for preliminary inquiry as mentioned above and investigated the case and submitted a chargesheet in the Competent Court against Surender Chaudhary, the then, Director of the petitioner's firm and other co-accused. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... already filed a Civil Suit in original Suit No. 340 of 2015 in the Court of Civil Judge/Senior Division, I Meerut with the prayer of issue of permanent injunction in favour of the petitioner's company restraining the finalization of tender dated 15.10.2014, and the suit is still pending. 9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that opportunity of hearing was not given to the petitioner while passing the impugned order. 10. Learned Chief Standing Counsel has submitted that the order in question does not in any away curtails the right of the petitioner because it is simply directive in nature to the officers within the control of the State to regulate the supply of the medicine. 11. It is necessary to mention certain facts relating to CBI case, on the basis of which the order impugned was passed by the Competent Authority. It is alleged that with the intention to obtain maximum orders of medicine and equipment and obtain profit by way of fake supply to various persons. Shri Surendra and Narender Chaudhary, props M/s. Daffodills Pharmaceuticals and M/s. Eastern Drug Sanitary Products in conspiracy with senior officers of Department of Health Family Welfare ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Divisional Forest Officer Vs. Bishwanath Tea Co. Ltd., AIR 1981 SC 1368, and arrived at the conclusion that where the contract entered into between the State and the persons agreed is non-statutory and purely contractual and the rights are governed only by the terms of the contract, writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. Similar view has been taken in State of Gujarat Ors. Vs. Meghji Pethraj Shah Charitable Trust Ors., (1994) 3 SCC 552; and Noida Entrepreneurs Association Vs. U.P. Financial Corporation Anr., 1994 Suppl. (2) SCC 108. 14. In Indore Development Authority Vs. Smt. Sadhana Agarwal Ors., (1995) 3 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court affirmed and approved the view taken by the Apex Court in Bareilly Development Authority (supra), but it further observed that the High Court, while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, may satisfy itself on the materials on record that the State has not acted in an arbitrary or erratic manner. A similar view has been taken by the Supreme Court in Union of India Ors. Vs. M/s. Graphic Industries Co. Ors., (1994) 5 SCC 398. In the said judg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that in absence of mala fides or extreme case of arbitrariness, it is not permissible for the Writ Court to have a judicial review of contract or to enforce the contractual obligations in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 19. In Kerala State Electricity Board Anr. Vs. Kurien E. Kalathil ors, (2000) 6 SCC 293; the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a similar situation, observed as under:- If a term of a contract is violated, ordinarily the remedy is not the writ petition under Article 226. We are also unable to agree with the observation of the High Court the contractor was seeking enforcement of a statutory contract. A contract would not become statutory merely because it is for construction of a public utility and it has been awarded by a statutory body. We are also agree with the observation of the High Court that since the obligation imposed by the contract on the contracting parties comes within the purview of the Contract Act, that would not make the contract statutory. Clearly the High Court fell into an error in coming to the conclusion that the contract in question was statutory in nature...The contract between the parties is in the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s always a presumption that the State action is reasonable and in public interest and it is for the party challenging its validity to show that it is wanting in reasonableness or is not informed with public interest. The burden is a heavy one and it has to be discharged to the satisfaction of the court by proper and adequate material. The court cannot lightly assume that the action taken by the Government is unreasonable or against public interest because there are large number of considerations, which necessarily weigh with the Government in taking an action. 23. It cannot be doubted that the principles of natural justice cannot be put into a strait-jacket formula and that its application will depend upon the fact situation obtaining therein. It cannot be applied in a vacuum without reference to the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. This is what has been held by the Supreme Court in K.L. Tripathi Vs. State Bank of India Ors., AIR 1984 SC 273; N.K. Prasada Vs. Government of India Ors., (2004) 6 SCC 299; State of Punjab Vs. Jagir Singh, (2004) 8 SCC 129; Karnataka SRTC Anr. Vs. S.G. Kotturappa Anr., (2005) 3 SCC 409; and in Viveka Nand Sethi Vs. Chairman, J K ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he same applying to all conditions. 27. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Managing Director ECIL, Hyderabad Vs. B. Karunakar, AIR 1994 SC 1074 made reference to its earlier decisions and observed:- In A.K. Kraipak Ors. Vs. Union of India Ors., AIR 1970 SC 150, it was held that the rules of natural justice operate in areas not covered by any law. They do not supplant the law of the land but supplement it. They are not embodied rules and their aim is to secure justice or to prevent miscarriage of justice. If that is their purpose, there is no reason why, they should not be made applicable to administrative proceedings also especially when it is not easy to draw the line that demarcates administrative enquiries from quasi-judicial ones. An unjust decision in an administrative inquiry may have a more far reaching effect than a decision in a quasi-judicial inquiry. It was further observed that the concept of natural justice has undergone a great deal of change in recent years. What particular rule of natural justice should apply to a given case must depend to a great extent on the facts and circumstances of that case, the framework of the law under which the inqu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it was necessary to issue individual show cause notices to each selected person when the entire selection was cancelled because of widespread and all pervasive irregularities affecting the result of selection and it was observed:- The illegality and irregularity are so intermixed with the whole process of the selection that it becomes impossible to sort out right from the wrong or vice versa. The result of such a selection cannot be relied or acted upon. It is not a case where a question of misconduct on the part of a candidate is to be gone into but a case where those who conducted the selection have rendered it wholly unacceptable. 31. In the case of S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs. Vs. Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs. Ors., AIR 1994 SC 853, the Hon'ble Supreme Court refused to interfere on the ground of breach of principles of natural justice by observing that a person, whose case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the Court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation. 32. It is clear that when there is a failure on the part of the contractor to comply with the express terms of the contract and/or to commit breach of the said te ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
