REJESH DAS Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR ORISSA SCHEDULED CASTE AND SCHEDULED TRIBE DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CO OPERATIVE CORPORATION LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has established a manufacturing unit of Tractor Trailers and other agricultural implements. The Orissa Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Development Finance Co-operative Corporation, Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Corporation") invited tenders for supply of Tractor Trailers etc. by publishing notice on 6/6/2000. The petitioner submitted his tender along with the earnest money deposit of Rs.20,000/-. Since the earnest money was deposited in two instalments, the petitioner apprehending that his tender may not be considered, filed O.J.C. No. 5613/2000 seeking for a direction to consider the tender and for award of the contract to the petitioner. The said writ application was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 8/9/2000 with a direction that the concerned opposite parties shall consider the offer of the petitioner along with the other eligible tenderers. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of the order of the High Court, the petitioner's tender has not been considered and the opposite parties have placed orders for supply of 76 numbers of Trailers with opposite parties 3 to 9 on the basis of negotiation, even though their offers were higher than the offer of the petitioner. By interim order dated 29/9/2000, the learned Single Judge of this Court directed opposite party Nos.1 and 2 not to disburse the loan for the purpose of purchase of Trailers untill further orders.

(2.) The opposite party No. 1 has filed counter wherein it is indicated that the offer of the petitioner was considered and found unacceptable by the Tender Committee. Subsequently, the petitioner by way of amendment has challenged the decision of the Tender Committee. An application for intervention has been filed by M/s. Sheet Profile as order has been placed with such concern for supplying some Trailers. The prayers for amendment and intervention were allowed. The counsels appearing for the petitioner, intervenor and opposite parties 1 and 2 have been heard.

(3.) The scope for interference with any administrative decisions relating to acceptance of tender has been well settled by the Supreme Court as well as by this Court. It is now well settled that the award of a contract by the State or the public authority should be interfered with only if the Court comes to the conclusion that the award of the contract is vitiated by arbitrariness, unfairness, illegality and irrationality. However, the Court cannot sit as an appellate authority over such decisions taken by the appropriate authority. The grounds upon which an administrative action can be judicially reviewed can be summarized as follows :-