Back
2024 Supreme(Kar) 1332
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
N. V. ANJARIA, CJ., K. V. ARAVIND, J.
Hindustan Technologies, Rep. By Its Authorised Signatory, Nidadavolu B. V. R. Lingam, S/o. Nidadavolu Namasivaya – Petitioner
Versus
The Union Of India, Rep. By Its Secretary (Ministry Of Defence) and Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No.13734 of 2024 (GM-RES)
Decided On : 03-12-2024
For the Petitioner:Sri Chandan K., Advocate.
For the Respondents: Sri K. Arvind Kamath, ASGI A/W Sri Shanthi Bhushan H., DSGI.
Public interest litigations must demonstrate bona fide public interest without conflict, while courts exercise limited scrutiny over administrative decisions unless evidence shows illegality or arbitrariness.
Headnote:(A) Public Interest Litigation - Maintainability - Judicial Review - Court analyzed the eligibility conditions of the tender process in light of both public interest and the petitioner's status as a sole proprietorship company. The petitioner failed to demonstrate bona fides in advocating public interest due to a potential conflict of interest and the vagueness of the authorization to file the PIL (Paras 9, 12, 24).
(B) The Court held that it would not interfere in the tender process unless clear evidence of arbitrariness or unreasonableness was provided, affirming the standard set by the Supreme Court regarding the scope of judicial review in administrative decisions (Paras 15, 19).
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the award of a contract to respondent No. 4 for acoustic emission testing, alleging violation of eligibility criteria regarding turnover and past experience. It was claimed that the award of the contract was contrary to tender conditions and public interest (Paras 5, 20).
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner lacked standing to maintain the public interest litigation and did not establish any grounds for interference in the tendering process. The claim of fraudulent documents was unsubstantiated (Paras 9, 27).
Issues: The Court addressed the issues of the maintainability of the public interest petition and the extent of judicial review permissible in tendering processes (Para 8).
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the necessity of bona fides in public interest litigation and the importance of thorough evidence to challenge administrative actions, reinforcing that judicial review should be limited to process scrutiny, not decisions (Paras 9, 15, 19).
Result: Writ petition is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's company claims public interest litigation (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. eligibility criteria for tender questioned (Para 6) |
| 3. respondent argues petition lacks public interest (Para 7) |
| 4. court's view on maintainability of the petition (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. legal standards for public interest litigations emphasized (Para 12 , 13) |
| 6. judicial review principles in contract awards outlined (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 7. judgment on evaluation process and evidence presented (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 8. concerns over unsubstantiated allegations in evaluations (Para 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 9. lack of evidence for claims against award of contract (Para 25 , 26) |
| 10. conclusion of the petition being dismissed (Para 27 , 28 , 29) |
JUDGMENT :
K.V. ARAVIND, J.
Heard learned advocate Mr. K. Chandan for the petitioner and learned Additional Solicitor General of India Mr. K. Arvind Kamath along with learned Deputy Solicitor General of India Mr. H. Shanthi Bhushan for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
2. This petition is by a sole proprietorship company. This petition is filed styling as public interest litigation with a prayer to direct the respondent-authorities to strictly adhere to the terms and conditions of the tender notification for undertaking acoustic emission testing of HP Air bottles on Board in ships/submarines issued on 18.12.2023 and to direct the respondent-authorities to take stringent action against respondent No.4.
3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a company espousing the public interest for the welfare and benefit of the general public in the name and style of Hindustan Technologies. It is stated that the petitioner Company has no personal interest in the litigation and is not guided by self-gain. The business of the petitioner company is stated to provide manpower for marine works, such as welders for ship repairs, cutters and fabricators for the marine repair works. The company further provides manpower in cleaning of ships etc.
4. The petitioner has pleaded further that acoustic emission testing involves testing of higher-pressure air cylinders, which are critical and dangerous equipment on board, and any negligence during operation or testing could result in a fatal accident.
5. It is stated that the tender work awarded in favour of respondent No.4 is in violation of the terms and conditions of the tender. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that the tender participant should have a minimum average turnover of Rs.13,54,500/- annually over the last three financial years as of 31.03.2023, and proof of the same should be enclosed with the technical bid. The second condition is that the tender participant should have executed contracts in the field related to acoustic emission testing during the last seven years. It is the contention that respondent No.4 would not fulfill the above eligibility criteria. The award of a contract in violation of the eligibility conditions or the award of a contract in favour of an ineligible person is in violation of the conditions and is illegal and has a greater impact on the public at large.
6. Learned advocate Mr. K. Chandan for the petitioner submits that respondent No.4 is not eligible having no minimum average turnover of Rs.13,54,500/- annually over the last three financial years pending on 31.03.2023. Further, respondent No.4 has not executed a contract related to acoustic emission testing in the last seven years. Learned advocate would further submit that the work orders executed by respondent No.5 are submitted to be work orders executed by respondent No.4 to claim the eligibility, which is accepted by respondent-authorities contravening the tender conditions.
6.1 Learned advocate for the petitioner further submits that respondent No.4, by fraud and misrepresentation, has claimed the work completion certificate in favour of respondent No.5 to seek the eligibility, genuineness of which is not examined by the respondent-authorities.
6.2 Learned advocate further sub
