2023 Supreme(Del) 1239

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Satish Chandra Sharma, Subramonium Prasad, JJ.
M/s Rahul Roadways – Appellant
Versus
Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 16973 of 2022 & CM APPLs. 53777 of 2022, 206 of 2023, W.P.(C) 11749 of 2022 & CM APPLs. 34957 of 2022, 42478 of 2022,
Decided On : 03-03-2023

Headnote:

TENDERS - SUPPLY AND TRANSPORTATION OF SPECIFIED FOOD ARTICLES (SFA) - NATIONAL FOOD SECURITY ACT, 2013 (NFSA) - CNG COMPLIANT VEHICLES - VALIDITY - ORDERS OF NGT AND SUPREME COURT - POLICY MEASURES ADOPTED BY RESPONDENT NOS. 1 & 2 - FACTUAL MATRIX - VARIOUS ORDERS PASSED BY NGT, SUPREME COURT AND POLICY MEASURES ADOPTED BY RESPONDENT NOS. 1 & 2 - MEMORANDUM DATED 18.05.2018 - ORDER DATED 04.07.2018 - ORDER DATED 27.07.2018 - OFFICE NOTES OF JULY 2020 - AUGUST 2020 TENDERS - AGREEMENTS EXECUTED WITH CONTRACTORS - WITHDRAWAL OF WRITS - CANCELLATION OF JULY 2022 TENDER - RE-ISSUANCE OF TENDER - CONDITION THAT THE VEHICLE OUGHT TO BE DELHI REGISTERED - ARGUMENTS OF PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS - DECISION OF DSCSCL TO PERMIT PLYING OF BSIV COMPLIANT VEHICLES - EXTANT ORDERS OF SUPREME COURT, NGT, THIS COURT AND POLICY FRAMED BY RESPONDENT NOS. 1 & 2 SUBSEQUENTLY - MOTIVATION BEHIND DSCSCL'S DECISION - OUTBREAK OF COVID-19 - PMGKAY - ENHANCED OBLIGATIONS OF DSCSCL - ARGUMENTS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES - EXTENT OF DEFERENCE OWED TO DECISIONS OF TENDER AUTHORITIES - JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION - PRINCIPLES OF LEGITIMATE EXPECTATIONS AND PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL - CONDITION IN THE TENDER, THAT VEHICLES WHICH HAVE BEEN OFFERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF TRANSPORTATION OF FOOD GRAINS SHOULD BE REGISTERED IN DELHI - RULE 90(6) OF THE CENTRAL MOTOR VEHICLES RULES - DIRECTIONS CONTAINED IN THE LETTER DATED 13.02.2018 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF DELHI - AMENDED RULE 90 - CONCLUSION.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioners, contractors and transporters, running their businesses as a contractor for Delhi State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. (DSCSCL) for supplying and transportation of SFAs from FCI godowns to FPSs, filed writ petitions challenging the validity of tenders for supply and transportation of SFAs from godowns of the Food Corporation of India (FCI) to Fair Price Shops (FPS) located within the NCT of Delhi by allowing vehicles which are not CNG compliant. The controversy arose due to a series of orders passed by the National Green Tribunal (NGT), the Supreme Court, and policy measures adopted by Respondent Nos. 1 & 2. The factual matrix leading up to the filing of the present matter is set out in the judgment.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the decision of Respondent No. 2, DSCSCL, to permit plying of BSIV vehicles for the purposes of transporting food grain has been made to favor Respondent Nos. 3 & 4. The Court further held that the impugned decision taken by DSCSCL not being illegal, the Petitioners are not entitled to have the contract. The Court also held that the decision of DSCSCL to permit plying of BSIV compliant vehicles after initially mandating participation by contractors with only CNG compliant vehicles, reflects a meticulous, considered, and lawful approach. The Court further held that the condition in the tender, that vehicles which have been offered for the purpose of transportation of food grains should be registered in Delhi is arbitrary and is not in consonance with the Motor Vehicles Act, is also not tenable.

Issues: 1. Whether the decision of Respondent No. 2, DSCSCL to permit plying of BSIV compliant vehicles for the purposes of distributing SFAs from FCI godowns to FSPs in Delhi, is contrary to the extant Orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, NGT, this Court and the policy framed by Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 subsequently. 2. Whether the condition in the tender, that vehicles which have been offered for the purpose of transportation of food grains should be registered in Delhi is arbitrary and is not in consonance with the Motor Vehicles Act.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The decision of the tendering authority is entitled to a degree of deference as the author of the contract. Interference is permissible only if the decision-making process is mala fide or is intended to favor someone. Similarly, the decision should not be interfered with unless the decision is so arbitrary or irrational that the Court could say that the decision is one which no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with law could have reached. 2. The tendering authority, being the author of the tender, is best placed to determine the terms and conditions which govern the award of the tender. It is not a writ court's domain to sit as an appellate authority over a decision taken by the tendering authority and scope of interference being extremely narrow; interference is warranted only in situations where the decision of the tendering authority is colored in malafide, or was intended to favor someone or is so outrightly perverse that a reasonable person could not have arrived at such decision. 3. The doctrine of legitimate expectations and promissory estoppel cannot be invoked in abstract and the Courts are bound to see all aspects including the objectives to be achieved and the public good at large. The Courts cannot bind the government to policy decision if the same is changed due to overreaching concerns of public interest.

Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed, along with pending application(s), if any.