LexCENTRAL COALFIELDS LIMITED & ANR. versus SLL-SML (JOINT VENTURE CONSORTIUM) & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2016) 4 S.C.R. 890 CENTRAL COALFIELDS LIMITED & ANR. v. SLL - SML (JOINT VENTURE CONSORTIUM) & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 8004of2016) AUGUST 17, 2016 [MADAN B. LOKUR AND R.K. AGRAWAL, JJ.] Contract: Bidding process - Terms of NIT - Deviation from, permissibility - Held: Whether a term of NIT is essential or not is a C decision taken by employer which should be respected - Even if the term is essential, the employer has inherent authority to deviate from it provided the deviation is made applicable to all bidders and potential bidders - However, if the term is held by the employer to be ancillary or subsidiary even that decision should be respected - In the instant case, the employer prescribed a particular format of D -· bank guarantee to be furnished - Jn such case, bidder ought to -have submitted bank guarantee in that particular format only and nqt in any other format. Administrative law: Administrative action - Judicial review, scope - Held: There must be judicial restraint-in interfering with E administrative action - Ordinarily, the soundness of the decision taken by the authority ought not to be questioned but the decision making process can certainly be subject to judicial review. F G H Doctrines/Principles: Privilege-of-participation principle - Ap- plicability of Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: The deviation from the terms and conditions is per- missible so long as the level playing field is maintained and it does not result in any arbitrariness or discrimination. It was held in * Ramana case that if other bidders were aware that non-fulfill- ment of the eligibility condition would not be a bar for consider- ation, they too would have submitted a tender but were prevented from doing so due to the eligibility condition. In the instant case, the other bidders and those who had not bid could very well con- tend that if they had known that the prescribed format of the 890 CENTRAL COALFIELDS LIMITED & ANR. v. SLL - SML (JOINT VENTURE CONSORTIUM) bank guarantee was not mandatory or that some other terms of the NIT or GTC were not mandatory for compliance, they too would have meaningfully participated in the bidding process. In other words, by re-arranging the goalposts, they were denied the privilege of participation. [Paras 36, 38] (899-E, H; 900-A, E] 2. The decision taken by CCL to adhere to the terms and conditions of the NIT and the GTC was certainly not irrational in any manner whatsoever or intended to favour anyone. The deci- sion was lawful and not unsound. [Para 44] [904-A-B) *Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India (1979) 3 SCC 489 : 1979 (3) SCR1014; GJ. Fernandez v. State of Karnataka (1990) 2 SCC 488 : 1990 (1) SCR 229; Tata Cellular v. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 651 : 1994 (2) Suppl. SCR 122; Jagdish Manda! v. State of Orissa (2007) 14 SCC 517 : 2006 (10) Suppl. SCR 606; Michigan Rubber (India) Limited " State of Karnataka. (2012) 8 SCC 216 : 2012 (8) SCR128; Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor AIR 1936 PC 253 - relied on. Rashmi Metaliks Ltd. v. Ko/kata Metropolitan Development Authority (2013) 10 SCC 95 : 2013 (17) SCR 345 - Distinguished. Poddar Steel Corporation v. Ganesh Engineering Works (1991) 3 SCC 273 : 1991 (2) SCR 696; Bakshi Security and Personnel Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Devkishan Computed Pvt. Ltd. (2007) 14 SCC 517 : 2006 (10) Suppl. SCR 606 - referred to. Case Law Reference 1991 (2) SCR 696 2013 (17) SCR 345 1979 (3) SCR 1014 1990 (1) SCR 229 referred to distinguished relied on relied on 1994 (2) Suppl. SCR 122 relied on 2006 (10) Suppl. SCR 606 relied on 2006 (10) Suppl. SCR 606 referred to 2012 (8) SCR 128 AIR 1936 PC 253 relied on relied on Para 25 Para 25 Para35 Para 38 Para 42 Para 42 Para 46 Para 46 Para 52 891 A B c D E F G H 892 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016) 4 S.C.R. A CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8004 of B 2016. From the Judgment and Order dated 26.10.2015 of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in L. P.A. No. 625 of 2015 WITH C.A. No. 8005 of2016. Mukul Rohatgi, AG, Jagdeep Dhankhar, Dhruv Mehta, Dr. A. M. Singhvi, Sr. Advs., Rajiv S. Roy, Avrojyoti Chatterjee, Abhijit S. Roy, Aditya Mehrotra, Pranab Kumar Mullick, M. R. Sukumar, M. Chandola, C Rajesh Kumar, Ananya Kumar, Divyam Agarwal, Ms. Sneha Sheth, Akhil Bhardwaj, M. C. Dhingra, Kaushik Poddar, Deepak Sabharwal, Chandra Shekhar Biswas, Advs. for the appearing partie
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.