9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 1624X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dicine took a decision by rejecting the unqualified tender of the petitioner's company with the reason that the CBI case was pending against the firm and passed the order impugned directing the authorities is concerned not to purchase the medicine from the petitioner's firm. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner by means of present writ petition have challenged the impugned order dated 21.08.2015 contained as annexure No. 6 of the writ petition, with the prayer to quash the order in question with further prayer to issue order, commanding the respondents not to interfere in the functioning of the petitioner as supplier of medicine. The State of U.P. has issued the purchase policy for the purchase of medicine. The local purchase on the rate contract is regulated under the provisions of clause 9 of the purchase policy which is reproduced as under:- "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 affidavi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... minal case against the company, the Central Purchase Committee has disqualified the petitioner on the ground that a CBI case is pending against the petitioner's company. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we find no illegality in exclusion of the petitioners from the tender for supply of medicine. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed." 7. In light of the above observation by the Court, Principal Secretary, Government of U.P. has issued a Government Order dated 21.08.2015 directing the authorities concerned within his control that no tender order to purchase medicine, be issued to the firms against whom the CBI has submitted chargesheet or firm and entities which were found to be involved in the offences connected with NHRM programme. 8. Learned Standing Counsel has also submitted that the petitioner's firm had 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 tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s banks. 12. On the facts mentioned as above, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that contractual obligations or non fulfillment of the specification or its breach and consequential order passed by the Competent Authority/Purchaser are not the subject matter of writ jurisdiction. 13. It has been said from time and again by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that a party cannot be permitted to dispute the contractual obligations by invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction. In Bareilly Development Authority & Anr. Vs. Ajay Pal Singh & ors, AIR 1989 SC 1076, a similar contention had been raised. The Apex Court considered a catena of judgments, particularly, M/s. Radha Krishna Agarwal & ors Vs. State of Bihar & ors, AIR 1977 SC 1496; Premji Bhai Parmar & ors Vs. Delhi Development Authority & ors, AIR 1980 SC 738; and 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 mai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dance of obligations voluntarily incurred." 17. Similarly, in State of Orissa & ors Vs. Narain Prasad & Ors., AIR 1997 SC 1493, the Apex Court has observed as under:- "A person who enters into certain contractual obligations with his eyes open and works the entire contract, cannot be allowed to turn round...and question the validity of these obligations or the validity of the Rules which constitute the terms of contract. The extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226, which is of a discretionary nature and is exercised only to advance the interest of justice, cannot certainly be employed in aid of such persons. Neither justice nor equity is in their favour." 18. Similarly, in Raunaq International Ltd. Vs. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. & Ors., AIR 1999 SC 393, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held 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 Suprem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aw or mala fide, a decision bringing about change cannot per se be interfered with by the court. It is neither within the domain of the courts nor the scope of judicial review to embark upon an enquiry as to whether a particular decision or policy is wise or whether better decision can be evolved. Nor are the courts inclined to strike down a policy at the behest of a petitioner merely because it has been urged that a different order or policy would have been fairer or wiser or more scientific or more logical. Wisdom and advisability of economic policy are ordinarily not amenable to judicial review. In matters relating to economic issues the authority has, while taking a decision, right to "trial and error" as long as both trial and error are bona fide and within the limits of the authority. 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 act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nner to situations which are not alike. These rules are not cast in a rigid mould nor can they be put in a legal straitjacket. They are not immutable but flexible." It is equally well settled that the principles of natural justice must not be stretched too far and in this connection reference may be made to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Sohan Lal Gupta & Ors. Vs. Asha Devi Gupta & Ors., (2003) 7 SCC 492; Mardia Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Union of India, AIR 2004 SC 2371 and Canara Bank Vs. Debasis Das, AIR 2003 SC 2041. 26. In Hira Nath Mishra & Ors. Vs. The Principal, Rajendra Medical College, Ranchi & Anr. AIR 1973 SC 1260, 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. 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 th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . In Biswa Ranjan Sahoo & Ors., Vs. Sushanta Kumar Dinda & Ors., AIR 1996 SC 2552, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had the occasion to examine whether principles of natural justice were required to be followed in a matter where because of large scale malpractice in the selection process, the selection was cancelled and in this context it was observed:- "Nothing would become fruitful by issuance of notice. Fabrication would obviously either be not known or no one would come forward to bear the brunt. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal was right in not issuing notice to the persons who are said to have been selected and given selection and appointment." 30. In Union of India & Ors. Vs. O. Chakradhar, AIR 2002 SC 1119, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the question whether 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 res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
