Back
Supreme Court of India
K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI., P. SATHASIVAM, J.
Ravi Development - Appellant
Versus
Shree Krishna Prathisthan & Ors. - Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3459 of 2009 with Nos. 3460, 3461-62, 3463-64 and 3466-67 of 2009
Decided on : MAY 11, 2009.
(b) Government contract – Developer first submitting its proposal to MHADA – When no decision was forthcoming it approached the Cabinet Minister incharge who happened to be the Chief Minister – Records showing no favouritism – Impugned judgment contrary to facts – Not sustainable. (Para 19)
(c) Government contract – Swiss challenge method – Proposer undertakes to raise its bid to match the highest bidder in public tender – Other bidder not allowed to raise their bids after opening of tenders – The other bidder even did not make any request to raise its bid – Legality of the Swiss challenge method not challenged in its entirety – No illegality. (Para 24)
(d) Administration of Justice – Judicial review – Government contract – Scope for judicial review in government contact is very limited – Court cannot substitute its own decision for that of the government – No arbitrariness or unreasonableness in the adoption of the Swiss challenge policy – Cannot be interfered. (Para 25, 26)
(1994) 6 SCC 651; (2000) 2 SCC 617; (1986) 4 SCC 566; (2003) 8 SCC 100 – Relied upon
Private Public Participation (PPP) – Need of the time – Wide publicity required and emphasised. (Para 30)
Facts of the case:
Ravi Development submitted a proposal to MHADA for development of undeveloped land received by MHADA.
The Chief Executive Officer, Maharashtra submitted detailed report of West Bengal Joint Venture Method and Jaipur Swiss Challenge Method to Housing Department of Government of Maharashtra and recommended for Swiss Challenge Method thereby seeking Governments approval. It was recommended that proposal received could be advertised under Swiss Challenge Method on pilot basis.
The Housing Department of Government of Maharashtra approved Swiss Challenge Method. MHADA issued a public notice for development of the land in question and two other lands by Swiss Challenge Method.
Shree Krishna Pratisthan filed PIL before the High Court of Bombay challenging the public notice issued by MHADA only in respect of Mira Road Project and not in respect of two other projects.
MHADA passed Resolution accepting the bid of Ravi Development and awarded contract to them for getting construction of 48,841 sq. mtr.
After giving undertaking accepting the Swiss Challenge Method and after participation and having failed in tendering process, M/s Ostwal Builders Ltd. filed W.P. (L) challenging the public notice as well as MHADA’s resolution.
The High Court of Bombay allowed the writ petition holding that Swiss Challenge Method itself is arbitrary and unreasonable consequently, struck down the action taken thereto.
Finding of the Court:
Impugned judgment cannot be sustained.
Result:
Appeals allowed.
JUDGMENT
P. Sathasivam, J.
1) Ravi Development and Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (in short "MHADA") filed S.L.P.(c) No. 13149 of 2008, S.L.P.(c) Nos. 11229 of 2008 and 11355-11356 of 2008 against the common order dated 27.03.2008 in W.P. (L) No. 2714 of 2007 with PIL No. 72 of 2007 of the High Court of Bombay, whereby it was held that inviting public tender on 20.05.2007 for development of the Government lands by invoking the Swiss Challenge Method with a view to confer preferential treatment to Ravi Development was wholly unfair, unreasonable, arbitrary, illegal and quashed the contract awarded to Ravi Development. As in the impugned judgment, High Court disapproved the Swiss Challenge Method and accordingly, MHADA had refused to award the contract to Shree Developers to whom land at Kavesar, Thane was allotted and Gurukrupa Developers, to whom land at Chhitalsar Manpada at Thane was allotted, both the said developers filed S.L.P.(c) Nos. 21754-21755 & 21756-21757 of 2008 respectively challenging the very same common order after getting permission from this Court.
2) Leave granted.
3) The common issue involved in all these appeals centres around the validity of the Swiss Challenge Method adopted by the MHADA on a pilot basis with respect to a proposal received from a private entrepreneur i.e. Ravi Development for development of undeveloped land owned by MHADA.
4) Brief facts in a nutshell are as under:
Ravi Development submitted a proposal dated 25.08.2006 to the Chief Executive Officer, MHADA for development of undeveloped land in Survey No. 126 to 130, 150 (pt.), 151 (pt.) at Mira Road, District Thane which was received by MHADA on 31.08.2006. On 11.10.2006, similar proposal was also submitted by Ravi Development to the Chief Minister of Government of Maharashtra who was also holding the portfolio of Housing. The Desk Officer, Housing Department, Government of Maharashtra forwarded the aforesaid proposal received by the office of Chief Minister on 11.10.2006 to MHADA calling upon a detailed report. On 04.12.2006, the Chief Executive Officer, MHADA submitted note regarding proposal of Ravi Development to Housing Department of Government of Mahrashtra. The Chief Executive Officer, Maharashtra on 24.04.2007 submitted detailed report of West Bengal Joint Venture Method and Jaipur Swiss Challenge Method to Housing Department of Government of Maharashtra and recommended for Swiss Challenge Method thereby seeking Governments approval. It was recommended that proposal received could be advertised under Swiss Challenge Method on pilot basis.
5) The Housing Department of Government of Maharashtra approved Swiss Challenge Method on 17.05.2007 and directed MHADA to use the same on pilot project basis and for other similar proposals in future MHADA should take policy decision at its own level. Pursuant to the said decision MHADA issued a public notice on 20.05.2007 for development of the land in question and two other lands by Swiss Challenge Method. In the public notice as well as bid document, it was specifically stated that Swiss Challenge Method would be applied. The Swiss Challenge Method was also explained in the publication as well as in bid document making it clear that the developer, who has given proposal, would have first right of refusal.
6) In respect of the land in question, MHADA received four bids on 11.06.2007, they are: (a) M/s EBR Enterprises; (b) M/s Harshad P. Doshi Associates; (c) M/s Ravi Developments; and (d) M/s Ostwal Builders Ltd. All the bidders including M/s Ostwal Builders Ltd. Accepted knowledge of initiator of proposal and following of Swiss Challenge Method and gave an undertaking to the effect that they are well aware of Swiss Challenge Method and that the original proposer shall be given an opportunity to take up the project on the highest eligible bid offer. They were also informed that in case the original proposer agrees to match his bid to the highest offer then the project shall be aw
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
