IMPORTANT POINT
Scope of judicial review of administration action is limited.

JUDGMENT

P. Sathasivam, J.-Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 02.07.2008 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Appeal No. 1928 of 2007 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant-Company herein.

3. Brief facts:

(a) On 04.08.2005, the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) - Respondent No.2 herein floated a Tender being No. G30-05 for supply of Tyres, Tubes and Flaps specifying certain pre-qualification criteria.

(b) Challenging the said pre-qualification criteria, the appellant- Company, which is engaged in the manufacture and supply of tyres, tubes and flaps filed a Writ Petition being No. 20543 of 2005 before the High Court. After filing of the writ petition, the said criterion was withdrawn by the KSRTC. Thereafter, the KSRTC modified the pre-qualification criteria and issued a Tender being No. G-23-07 dated 05.07.2007 wherein, a new pre- qualification criterion was specified.

(c) Being aggrieved by the said pre-qualification criteria, the appellant- Company preferred a Writ Petition being No. 11951 of 2007 before the High Court. By judgment dated 13.09.2007, the learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed their writ petition.

(d) Challenging the said judgment, the appellant filed a Writ Appeal being No. 1928 of 2007 before the Division Bench of the High Court. By impugned judgment dated 02.07.2008, the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the same.

(e) Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant-Company has preferred this appeal by way of special leave before this Court.

4. Heard Ms. Madhurima Tatia, learned counsel for the appellant-Company and Mr. S.N. Bhat, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 & 3 and Mr. V.N. Raghupathy, learned counsel for the State.

5. Ms. Madhurima Tatia, learned counsel for the appellant-Company, after taking us through the tender pre-qualification criteria and their performance, raised the following submissions:

(i) The pre-qualification criteria as specified in Condition Nos. 2(a) and 2(b) (amended Condition Nos. 4(a) and 4(b)) of the Tender in question, viz., G-23-07 dated 05.07.2007 is unreasonable, arbitrary, discriminatory and opposed to public interest in general.

(ii) The said conditions were incorporated to exclude the appellant- Company and other similarly situated companies from the tender process on wholly extraneous grounds which are unsustainable in law.

(iii) The appellant-Company was successful in previous three contracts and supplied their products to the KSRTC. There was no complaint pertaining to short supply and quality. The financial capacity of the appellant-Company was never doubted by the KSRTC at any point of time, hence, the impugned pre-qualification criteria was included to exclude the appellant-Company from the tender bidding process with an ulterior motive.

6. Per contra, Mr. S.N. Bhat and Mr. V.N. Raghupathy, learned counsel for the respondents, after taking us through the relevant materials including the constitution of high level Committee i.e. Contract Management Group (CMG), its deliberations and decisions etc., submitted that:

(i) To have the best of the equipment for the vehicles, which ply on road carrying passengers, the respondents, in the circumstances, thought it fit that the criteria for applying for tender for procuring tyres should be at a high standard and hence only those manufacturers, who satisfy the eligibility criteria, should be permitted to participate in the tender.

(ii) The said two conditions were imposed in order to ensure the supply of good quality tyres.

(iii) The two conditions were incorporated in the tender notice pursuant to the decision of the Contract Management Group (CMG) of the KSRTC which consists of higher level officials having technical knowledge.

(iv) The corrigendum was issued to minimize the confusion, which might have occurred due to condition No. 2(a).

Discussion:

7. We have carefully consider