(1.) This litigation disappoints us a lot. This is a litigation in which the State (principal) is telling the contractor (writapplicant) that we did award a work of contract in your favour during the period of crisis, i.e. during the Covid pandemic lockdown, to be completed within a period of ten days from the issue of the work order. The State says that it did fix the terms and conditions of the contract, including the rates to be paid to the contractor. The State further says that the contractor did a remarkable job by completing the entire work to its satisfaction within a period of ten days. The State also says that, in accordance with the work order and the rates fixed, the contractor may be entitled to claim the requisite amount. However, in the end, the State says that we will not pay the full bill amount to the contractor as the State now believes that the fixation of the rates at the relevant point of time was a very hasty decision on their part and that the rates fixed at the relevant point of time were on a higher side.
(2.) The aforesaid stance of the State has led to the present litigation.
(3.) Fairness in State action is the soul of good governance. Every action of the State where it infringes the constitutional mandate or is opposed to basic rule of law or suffers from the infirmity of patent arbitrariness, judicial intervention is inevitable. Government enjoys great freedom while entering into contracts with private parties, but even that freedom is circumscribed by the rule of fairness, transparency and objectivity. It is more so where the Government is dealing with State largesse. The State holds monopoly in certain fields and where this privilege of monopoly is utilized for the purposes of allocation of works, it takes the colour of State largesse as both the State or its instrumentalities or public statutory bodies and the bidder are expected to benefit from such distribution and/or allocation of such works by way of contracts.