LexPAWAN KUMAR versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1253 : 2024 INSC 1041 Pawan Kumar v. Union of India & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 14689 of 2024) 18 December 2024 [J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Pursuant to an advertisement published by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (“BPCL”), the appellant made an online application for being appointed/ allotted a regular and rural retail outlet. The appellant was selected on draw on lots and he offered a suitable piece of land for purchase/lease belonging to third parties - Shri Lila Dhar and Shri Dinesh Kumar, whose consent letters were made available along with the application. At the time of application, there was some dispute between Mr. Lila Dhar and Mr. Dinesh Kumar as regards the land which was offered by the appellant. But the same ultimately came to be settled to the satisfaction of the Corporation before they issued the Letter of Intent. An unsuccessful contender in the application process filed a writ petition challenging the allotment to the appellant on ground of ‘False information’. The High Court allowed the writ petition. The appellant is before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against that order. The issue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was as to when a Constitutional Court can interfere with the decision of the Public Sector Undertaking (PSU) allotting retail outlets. Headnotes† Judicial review – When can a Constitutional Court interfere with the decision of the allotment of retail outlets made by Public Sector Undertaking: Held: The Court shall interfere with the decision of allotment of dealership when the Corporation (PSU) shows outright favor to the appellant – Once the PSU was convinced with the entire procedure undertaken by the appellant, the Constitutional Courts have no business interfering with the allotment – Power of judicial 1254 [2024] 12 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports review would be called for if the approach of the PSU is arbitrary or mala fide or procedure adopted is meant to favor one of the applicants – The decision-making process should clearly show that the said maladies are kept at bay. [Paras 22-23, 25] Tenders – When should a Constitutional Court exercise Judicial Restraint with regard to the decision of PSU Corporations granting it: Held: The PSU that authors the tender documents is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements and interpret its documents and therefore, the constitutional courts must defer to this understanding and appreciation of the tender documents, unless there is mala fide or perversity in the understanding or appreciation or in the application of the terms of the tender conditions – For the mere reason that the PSU has given an interpretation to the tender documents that is not acceptable to the constitutional courts it cannot be a reason to interfere with the interpretation – Where a decision is taken that is manifestly in consonance with the language of the tender document or subserves the purpose for which the tender is floated, the court should follow the principle of restraint and technical evaluation or comparison by the court would be impermissible – The principle that is applied to scan and understand an ordinary instrument relatable to contract in other spheres has to be treated differently than interpreting and appreciating tender documents relating to technical works and projects requiring special skills – The owner should be allowed to carry out the purpose and there has to be allowance of free play in the joints. [Para 25] List of Acts Constitution of India. List of Keywords Retail outlet dealership; Allotment of dealership; False information; Judicial review; Judicial restraint Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 14689 of 2024 From the Judgment and Order dated 06.07.2023 of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in CWP No. 835 of 2020 [2024] 12 S.C.R. 1255 Pawan Kumar v. Union of India & Ors. Appearances for Parties Jayant Bhushan, Sr. Adv., Shyam S Sharma, Sanjeev Kumar Baliyan, Rishabh Singhle, Amartya Bhushan, Yojit Mehra, Tushar Bhushan, Yash Yadav, Ms. Jyoti Garg, Sujoy Chatterjee, Advs. for the Appellant. S.D. Sanjay, A.S.G., V. Giri, Sr. Adv., Vikrant Narayan Vasudeva, Rohit Lochav, Shlok Chandra, Suyash Pandey, Shaurya Rai, Sunita Gautam, Madhav Sinhal, Dr. N. Visakamurthy, Parijat Sinha, Divyam Dhyani, Ms. Reshmi Rea Sinha, Rahul Narang, Shyamal Kumar, Advs. for the Respondents. Judgmen
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.