LexJSW INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED AND ANR. versus KAKINADA SEAPORTS LIMITED AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2017] 2 S.C.R. 41
JSW INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED AND ANR.
v.
KAKINADA SEAPORTS LIMITED AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No.3422 of2017)
A
MARCH 01, 2017
B
[MADAN B. LOKUR AND DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.]
Contract:
Award of contract - By Port Trust - For operating berth
cargo - To the appellant-Consortium of companies - Challenged
by the respondent-Consortium of companies (unsuccessful bidders),
on the ground that in terms of Policy clause against creation of
monopoly, appellants were not entitled to participate in the bidding
process as they were already operating a berth for dry cargo -
High Court set aside the contract - On appeal, held: The manner in
which the High Court interpreted the Policy clause is erroneous -
Reading the entire clause as a whole in the context of the purpose
of the policy, it has to be interpreted that the clause will apply only
when there is single private operator operating a single berth - If
there are more than one private operators, then the clause will
not apply - Award of contract upheld.
Deeds and Documents:
Interpretation of - Words used in documents cannot be treated
to be surplusage or superfluous and redundant and must be given
some meaning and weightage.
Judicial Review:
D
E
F
Scope of judicial review - In contractual matters - Held: Writ
courts should not interfere with contractual matters, unless the
decision taken is totally arbitrary, perverse or mala fide - There .
should be judicial restraint in review of administrative action -
G
Judicial Restraint.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The words used in documents cannot be treated.
to be surplusage or superfluous or redundant and mnst be given
some meaning and weightage. [Para 7] [46-D)
H
41
42
A
B
c
D
E
F
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2017] 2 S.C.R.
Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport
Authority of India (1979) 3 SCC 489: [1979) 3 SCR
1014; Central Coal Fields Limited and Another v. SLL-
SML (Joint Venture Consortium and Others) (2016) 8
sec 622 - relied on.
1.2 The High Court erred in interpreting the Clause in the
manner which it is done. On a bare reading of the Policy Clause
some weightage and meaning has to be given not only to the
word "next" as done by the High Court but also to the words
"only one private operator" appearing in the opening part of the
Clause. The words "only one private operator" cannot be treated
as surplusage. The entire clause has to be read as a whole in the
context of the purpose of the policy which is to avoid and restrict
monopoly. This Clause will apply only when there is one single
private operator in a port. If this single private operator is
operating a berth, dealing with one specific cargo then alone will
he not be allowed to bid for next berth for handling the same
specific cargo. The High Court erred in interpreting the clause
only in the context of the word "next" and ignored the opening
part of the Clause. The intention is that when a port is started, if
the first berth for a specific cargo is awarded in favour of'. one
private operator then he cannot be permitted to bid for the next
berth for the same type of cargo. However, once there are more
than one private operators operating in the port then any one of
them can be permitted to bid even for successive berths. In the
present case, there are already 5 private operators other than
the first consortium. The decision taken by the Port Trust could
not be termed to be arbitrary, perverse or ma/a fide. {Paras 8,
13) [46-G-H; 47-A-D; 49-C]
APM Terminals B. V. v. Union of India and Another (2011)
6 SCC 756 : [2011) 8 SCR 600 - distinguished.
2. In contractual matters, the Writ Courts should not
G
interfere unless the decision taken is totally arbitrary, perverse
H
· or ma/a fide. Superior courts while exercising their power of
judicial review must act with restraint while dealing with
contractual matters. There should be judicial restraint in review
of administrative action. The court should not act like court of
JSW INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED AND ANR. v. KAKINADA
SEAPORTS LIMITED AND ORS.
appeal; it cannot review the decision but can only review the
decision-making process. The court does not usually have the
necessary expertise to correct such technical decisions. [Paras
9, 11) 147-E-F; 48-G)
Tata Cellular vs. 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;
Afcons InfrExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.