JUDGMENT :

1. In this Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner is seeking quashing of E-NIT No. 36 of 2021-22 dated 11th of November, 2021 issued by the Respondents insofar as it pertains to ‘Water Supply Scheme, Weaven, Bandipora’. A direction is also sought in the name of the Respondents to issue formal allotment order in favour of the Petitioner for execution of work in terms of fresh E-NIT No. 19/PHE/Hyd/Bpr of 2021-22 dated 4th of June, 2021 with regard to ‘Water Supply Scheme, Weaven, Bandipora’.

2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the impugned NIT issued by the Respondents with regard to ‘Water Supply Scheme, Weaven, Bandipora’, is bad in law inasmuch as the work in question has been already put to tender by the Respondents in terms of E-NIT dated 4th of June, 2021, in which process the Petitioner emerged as the lowest bidder, thus, entitled for allotment of said work. It is contended that the Respondents, by initiating the entire process afresh with regard to the aforesaid work, have seriously prejudiced the rights and interests of the Petitioner. It is alleged that the aforesaid exercise is undertaken by the Respondents with a view to give benefit to some blue-eyed Contractors.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings on record and considered the matter.

4. At the very outset, what requires to be stated, herein this case, is that as per settled legal position, the tender issuing authority is the best judge of its interests/ needs and that it is always open to the said authority to suitably put the work required to be completed to tender as per the relevant terms and conditions so as to best serve its purposes. Whenever a particular work is put to tender, it might hurt the interests of someone or the other, but, for that reason, the said tendering process cannot be labelled as malafide or arbitrary. Besides, the Courts are expected to exercise judicial restraint in interfering with the administrative action, particularly in the matter of tender or contract. Ordinarily, the soundness of the decision taken by the tender issuing authority ought not to be questioned, but the decision-making process can certainly be subject to judicial review. The soundness of the decision may be questioned, firstly, if the decision made is so arbitrary and irrational that the Court can say that the decision is such that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could have reached or; second, if the process adopted or decision made by the authority is mala fide or intended to favour someone or; third, if the public interest is affected. In the case on hand, the decision of the Respondents in issuing the impugned NIT cannot be said to be one where they have acted in a manner in which no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with the relevant law would have acted. Furthermore, a bare perusal of the pleadings on record, does not indicate that the decision made by the authority is mala fide or intended to favour someone. Likewise, the third ground of public interest is also not affected in the present case because while it may be in public interest to have greater competition, it is also in public interest that all the tender conditions are complied with as prescribed by the tender issuing authority and that there is no uncertainty in that area.

5. Law on the subject of scope of judicial review in the matters of Contract is no more res integra.

6. In case titled ‘Tata Cellular V. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651’, at Paragraph No.94, Hon’ble the Supreme Court of the country, while dealing with the issue similar to the one subject matter of the instant Petition, evolved the following principles :

1. “The modern trend points to judicial restraint in administrative action;

2. The Court does not sit as a court of appeal but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made;

3. The Court does not have the expertise