SILPPI CONSTRUCTIONS CONTRACTORS versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [2019] 10 S.C.R. 932 · Decided: 21-06-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DEEPAK GUPTA, SURYA KANT · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 8 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
932
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 10  S.C.R.
THE SILPPI CONSTRUCTIONS CONTRACTORS
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ETC. ETC.
(Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.13802-13805 of 2019)
JUNE 21, 2019
[DEEPAK GUPTA AND SURYA KANT, JJ.]
Writ Jurisdiction: Scope of interference in contractual matters
involving State instrumentalities – Held: Courts should exercise a
lot of restraint while exercising their powers of judicial review in
contractual or commercial matters – The writ courts should not easily
interfere in commercial activities just because public sector
undertakings or government agencies are involved – No doubt, the
bodies which are State within the meaning of Art.12 of the
Constitution are bound to act fairly and are amenable to the writ
jurisdiction of superior courts but this discretionary power must be
exercised with a great deal of restraint and caution – Constitution
of India – Arts.32 and 226.
Administrative Law: Contracts involving technical issues –
Judicial review – Scope of interference – In contracts involving
technical issues, the courts should be even more reluctant because
of lack of expertise to adjudicate upon technical issues beyond
their domain – Courts should not use a magnifying glass while
scanning the tenders and make every small mistake appear like a
big blunder – Courts must also not interfere where such interference
will cause unnecessary loss to the public exchequer – Courts should
give way to the opinion of the experts unless the decision is totally
arbitrary or unreasonable – The authority which floats the contract
or tender, and has authored the tender documents is the best judge
as to how the documents have to be interpreted – If two interpretations
are possible then the interpretation of the author must be accepted
– The courts will only interfere to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality,
bias, mala fides or perversity.
Tata Cellular  v. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 651:
[1994] 2  Suppl.  SCR  122; Raunaq International Ltd.
v. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. (1999) 1 SCC 492  :
[1998] 3 Suppl.  SCR  421; Air India Limited v. Cochin
[2019] 10 S.C.R. 932
    932
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
933
International Airport Ltd. (2000) 2 SCC 617 :  [2000]
1 SCR 505 ; Karnataka SIIDC Ltd. v. Cavalet India
Ltd. (2005) 4 SCC 456 : [2005] 2 SCR 1183;  Master
Marine Services (P) Ltd. v.  Metcalfe & Hodgkinson
(P) Ltd. (2005) 6 SCC 138 : [2005] 3 SCR 666 ; B.S.N.
Joshi & Sons Ltd. v. Nair Coal Services Ltd. (2006) 11
SCC 548 : [2006] 8 Suppl. SCR 11 ;  Jagdish Mandal
v.  State of Orissa (2007) 14 SCC 517 : [2006] 10 Suppl.
SCR 606; Michigan Rubber (Inda) Ltd. v. State of
Karnataka & Ors. (2012) 8 SCC 216 : [2012] 8 SCR
128; Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v.  Nagpur Metro Rail
Corporation Ltd. (2016) 16 SCC 818 : [2016] 3 SCR
551; Montecarlo v. NTPC Ltd. AIR 2016 SC 4946:
[2016] 8 SCR 224 ; Municipal Corporation, Ujjain and
Another v. BVG India Ltd. and Others (2018) 5 SCC
462 : [2018] 6 SCR 861; Caretel Infotech Limited v.
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and Others
2019 (6) SCALE 70 – relied on.
Writ Jurisdiction: Contracts entered into between private
parties – Held: Are not subject to scrutiny under writ jurisdiction.
Party/Parties: Necessary party – Tender – Rejection – Writ
petition – Maintainability when all the tenderer are not parties in
the petition – In the instant case, the Division Bench of High Court
held that writ petition was not maintainable without making all the
tenderer parties to the petitions – Held: The Division Bench of the
High Court erred in holding that in all cases challenging the
decision of the tendering authority, all the eligible tenderers should
be made parties – Such a broad proposition could not be laid down
as an inflexible rule of law – In the instant case, the petitioner was
only challenging the rejection of its technical bid – At this stage,
the other tenderers were not necessary parties – The position may
be otherwise, if a tenderer challenges a bid awarded to another or
challenges the rejection of his bid at a later stage – The writ petition
was maintainable even in the absence of other tenderers because
till that stage there was no successful tenderer.
Contract: Related firms – Whether the petitioner firm and the
sister company are “Related Firms”, within the meaning of Clause
1.19 of the Manual of Contracts, 2007 –  It is not disputed that all
SILPPI CONSTRUCTIONS CONTRACTORS  v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
934
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 10  S.C.R.
the

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.