LexTATA CELLULAR versus UNION OF INDIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B TATA CELLULAR v: UNION OF INDIA JULY 26, 1994 [M.N. VENKATACHALIAH CJ., M.M. PUNCHHI AND S. MOHAN JJ.) Administrative Law-Judicial Review-Scope of-Merits of the decision cannot be reviewed-Only process of decision making can be reviewed- C Grounds for review of administrative action-l"ationality-Meaning of-'Wed- nesbury resonableness-Modern trend-Government contracts-Can be reviewed on the ground of violation of Anicle 14 of the Constitution of India-- Terms of invitation to tender not open to review-Limitations of coults in review of administrative decisions-Constitution of India-Articles 14 and D 226. Administrative law-Natural Justice-Bias-meaning of test of likelihood of bias-When there can be-<Jovemment tende,-Son of one of the person involved in selection process employed with one of the bidders-The bidder ultimately selected-Held, in the facts and circumstances of the case selection E is not vitiated by bias-Doctrine of necessity-Applicability of Constitution of India-Articles 14 and 299 Government contract-Ar- bitrariness-Govemment invited tenders for operation of cellular mobile phone service-Cenain criteria not in the tender introduced to eliminate F tenders-Held, it does not vitiate award of contract as all criteria could not have postulated at the beginning itself Constitution of India-Article 14 and 299-Government con- tract:-Whether technical i"egularity can be condoned without violation Ar- ticle 14-Govemment invited tenders for operation of cellular mobile phone G service-Terms prohibiting change in the proposed foreign collaborator-One tenderer dropping name of one collaborator out of three-Held, does not amount to change in collaborator. Constitution of India-Article 14 and 299-Government con- H tract:-Govemment inviting tenders for operation of Cellular mobile phone 122 TATA CELLULAR v. U.0.1. 123 service-One tenderer initially selected was later on dropped without assigning A any reasons therefore or hearing-Held, not hearing the tenders violates Natural Justice-Administrative Law. The Department of Telecommunication, Government oflndia invited tenders from India Companies for grant. of licence for the operation of B cellular mobile telephone service in Delhi, Bombay, Calcutta and Madras. The tender process consisted of two stages- (i) technical evaluation and (ii) financial evaluation. The companies short-listed at the first stage were to be invited at the second stage. For the purpose of evaluation of tenders and grant of licence, three C committees were constituted-(i) Tender Evaluation Committee (TEC) con- sisting of officials of Department of Telecommunication; (ii) Telecom Commission consisting of a Chairman and four members; and (iii) selec- tion Committee or Apex/High Powered Committee. Consisting of the Prin- cipal Secretary to the Prime Minister and there other secretaries of the D Government of India. After the first stage of the tender, 14 companies were short listed and on 30. 7 .92, financial tenders were issued. The financial tender contained seven criteria for selection for which no marks had been earmarked. The financial bid of the 14 short- listed companies were opened on 17.8.1992 E i.e., the cut off date for the financial bid. A second Tender Evaluation Committee examined the bids after devising a marking system for the criteria indicated in the financial tender. Ultimately names of four operators were recommended. Bharti Cellular was the first choice for all the four cities. BPL System and Projects was the second choice for Delhi F and Bombay and Tata Cellular and Skycell were the second chance for Calcutta and Madras. On 10.9.1992, the Chairman of the Telecom Com- mission directed that all the documents alongwith the recommendation of the Tender Evaluation Committee be sent to the Selection Committee for making final recommendations to the Government. On 10.9.1992 itself, the Tender Evaluation Committee's report alongwith the other documents G were sent to the High Power Committee. However, a D.O. was issued dissolving the High Power Committee. On 9.10.1992 the concerned Minister made a noting on the tile that the selection process may be completed by the Department of Telecom- H 124 SUPREME COURT REPOR'rs (1994] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. A munication itself as the High power Committee was taking much time. B Accordingly, a final list of 8 companies was prepared. In this final recom- mendation, the Chairman noted that
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.