LexNAGAR NIGAM, MEERUT versus AL FAHEEM MEAT EXPORTS PVT. LTD. AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
NAGAR NIGAM, MEERUT
v.
AL FAHEEM MEAT EXPORTS PVT. LTD. AND ORS.
DECEMBER 7, 2006
{S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.]
Uttar Pradesh Municipal Corporations Adhiniyam, I959-ss. 422 and
423-S/aughter .tzouse-Licence granted to a party to run the slaughter house
C of Municipal Corporntion for I year-On expiry of the licence, advertisement
inviting tenders for running the slaughter house-Advertisement challenged
by the party-High Court allowed the party to run the slaughter house for I 0
years on certain terms and conditions-On appeal, held: High Court not
justified in interfering with the advertisement as the same were not illegal,
arbitrary or discriminatory-The question of taking a policy decision and to
D ftx terms and conditions of a contract is for the concerned authority to decide
and it is not a matter in the domain of the Courts-This normal rule can be
departed from and contracts may be awarded by private' negotiation only in
rare and exceptional cases-Award of Government contracts through public
auction/tender is to ensure transparency and this is required by Article 14 of
E the Constitution-Constitution of India, I950-Article I4-Contract-
Government Contract.
Constitution of India, I950-Article 226-Jurisdiction under-Scope of-
Held: Though scope of such jurisdiction is wide-High Court ordinarily
would not interfere in an administrative action unless it is inter alia found
F to be contrary to a legislative policy or arbitrary attracting the wrath of
Article I 4-Judicial Interference.
Appellant-Corporation had issued an advertisement for modernizing
the existing slaughter house - First respondent had submitted a project
report in response. The same was not approved by the Corporation. In
G the meantime the first respondent was granted a licence for a period of
one year to run a slaughter house owned by the appellant-Corporation.
First respondent made a representation to the State Government to
modernize the slaughter house. As the same was not considered, he filed
a Writ Petition. High Court directed the State Government to consider the
H
354
NAGARNIGAM, MEERUTv. ALFAHEEMMEATEXPORTSPVT. LTD.
355
representation. Appellant-Corporation instead of deciding the representation, A
issued an advertisement inviting applications for tenders for running of the
slaughter house in question. In the meantime the licence granted to first
respondent had also expired. First respondent filed Writ Petition challenging
the advertisement. High Court allowed the Writ Petition directing that
respondent No. 1 should be allowed to run the slaughter house for 10 years
on terms and conditions stipulated therein. Hence the present appeal.
B
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1. The directions issued by the High Court were totally
unwarranted. The High Court undoubtedly exercises a wide jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The jurisdiction of the High C
Court to entertain an application in the nature of a public interest litigation
is well-known but it is also trite that the court should exercise its
jurisdiction only when it is essential to do so. It is also trite that ordinarily
the High Court would not interfere in an administrative action of the State
unless it is inter alia found to be contrary to a legislative policy or arbitrary D
attracting the wrath of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The
jurisdiction of the High Court is limited in this regard. (366-D-F)
State of UP. v. Section Officer Brotherhood and Anr., [2004J 8 SCC
286, referred to.
1.2. The question who should be given the contract for the slaughter
house and on what terms, is for the Municipal Corporation to decide, and
not for the Courts. All that the Courts can do is to ensure that there is no
a~bitrariness on the part of the Municipal authorities. [368-B-C]
E
1.3. It is a well settled principle of law that having regard to the F
provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, a State within the
meaning of Article 12 thereof cannot distribute its largesse at its own sweet
will. The Court can ensure that the statutory functions are not carried
out at the whims and caprices of the officers of the government/local body
in an arbitrary manner. But the Court cannot itself take over these G
functions. [368-B-D)
R.S. Shetty v. Union of India, AIR (1979) SC 1628, referred to.
1.4. It was not for the High Court to fix the terms and conditions of
the Contract. It Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.