The main legal point established is that the decision-making process of public authorities in contractual transactions must be fair, just, and transparent, and influenced by relevant considerations.

JUDGMENT :

D.N. PATEL, J.

1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 18th December, 2008, passed by the learned single Judge in a writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No. 3374 of 2007, whereby, the writ petition was dismissed. Against this order of dismissal, the Appellant (original Petitioner) has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal.

2. Following questions have mainly, been raised by Appellant for consideration;

2.1 Whether State instrumentality (Respondent No. 1) has acted unfairly and arbitrarily in grant of contract of public interest to Respondent No. 4;

2.2 Whether the decision making process of State instrumentality was influenced by extraneous/irrelevant considerations; and

2.3 Whether the Court has power of judicial review, in the matters of commercial/contractual transactions, between State instrumentality with the private party (Respondent No. 4 herein).

3. Factual Matrix:

3.1 Expression of Interest was published by the Jharkhand Stale Housing Board, Ranchi (Housing Board for the sake of brevity), inviting offers to develop the property of the Housing Board at Adityapur, Jamshedpur in a joint venture with the private developers. Express of Interes was floated on 13th November, 2005. The Appellant submitted its offer on 11th December, 2005 (Annexure 3 to the memo of appeal). Pursuant to the same, the Appellant was asked to attend the Pre-Bid discussion at the office of Respondent No. 2 on 1st February, 2006 and selected participants were asked by the Superintending Engineer of the Housing Board to give proposals with quotations, while providing the details of plots and scheme, by 18th May, 2006. This last date was extended by Respondent No. 2, asking the bidders to submit earnest money in the form of bank draft by 29th June, 2006. The Appellant submitted its offer along with the required bank draft as earnest money on 29th June, 2006 and thereafter, time and again the Appellant (original Petitioner) was called by Respondent No. 1 and on 24th August, 2006, Respondent No. 2 communicated the Appellant that its offer for Plot No. 6, earmarked for construction of residential as well as commercial complex, was found to be the highest and the Appellant was asked to show its financial credibility to meet the expenditure for such construction. Thereafter, Plot No. 6 was never allotted to the Appellant, though solvency certificates were given by the Appellant to Respondent No. 2 on 30th August, 2006 (Annexure 11 to the memo of appeal). Thereafter, several letters were written by the Appellant to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to issue the allotment order in respect of a land under Plot No. 6, situated at Adityapur, Jamshedpur. These letters are dated 29th March, 2007 (Annexure 12 to the memo of appeal), 10th April, 2007 (Annexure 13 to the memo of appeal), 10th May, 2007 (Annexure 14 to the memo of appeal) etc. Meanwhile the Board invited the second highest bidder, who is Respondent No. 4, who increased its offer whereas the Appellant, though was the highest offerer for the joint venture, was not called to increase its contribution in the joint venture.

3.2 On 25th April, 2007, ultimately Respondent No. 2 wrote a letter to the Appellant, communicating therein, that the original Petitioner/Appellant has not been selected for Plot No. 6. The original Petitioner/Appellant came to know under the Right to Information Act, 2005, that Respondent No. 4 has been allotted Plot No. 6, situated at Adityapur, Jamshedpur, for development, on 14th March, 2007. Thus, though the original Petitioner/Appellant was found to be the highest offerer for a joint venture, it has not been offered Plot No. 6. Thus, a writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No. 3021 of 2007 was preferred by the original Petitioner/Appellant for quashing the letter dated 25th April, 2007, whereby, the Appellant was communicated by Respondent No. 2 that it has not been selected for Plot No. 6, but, under the Right to Information Act, 2005, in June, 2007,