C.A.@S.L.P.(c) No.8185 of 2019

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6673 OF 2019 [Arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.8185 of 2019]

M/S N Ramachandra Reddy                 ...Appellant

    Versus

The State of Telangana & Ors        ...Respondents

J U D G M E N T

R. Subhash Reddy, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This  civil  appeal  is  filed  by  the  fourth

respondent in Writ Appeal No. 153 of 2019, aggrieved

by the order dated 13.03.2019, passed by the High

Court  for  the  State  of  Telangana  at  Hyderabad,

allowing intra court appeal, filed under clause 15

of the Letters Patent.

3. The  fourth  respondent  herein  was  the  writ

petitioner in Writ Petition No. 23501 of 2018, on

the file of High Court of Judicature for the State

1

C.A.@S.L.P.(c) No.8185 of 2019

of Telangana at Hyderabad, wherein it has challenged

the award of work of “construction of BT Road from

Gujed  to  Buddaguda,  in  Mahabubabad  District  of

Telangana State”. Writ Petition filed under Article

226 of the Constitution of India was dismissed by

the  learned  Single  Judge,  vide  order  dated

25.02.2019, against which, Letters Patent Appeal was

preferred under clause 15 of the Letters Patent. The

Division  Bench  of  the  High  Court  by  order  dated

13.03.2019  allowed  the  intra  court  appeal,  which

order is impugned in this appeal.

4. Necessary  facts  in  nutshell,  for  disposal  of

this appeal are as under:

The Roads and Buildings Department of the First

Respondent-State  of  Telangana,  floated  a  tender

notice  dated  21.04.2018,  inviting  bids  for

construction of “BT Road from Gujed to Buddaguda, in

Mahabubabad District of Telangana State”. Tender is

floated  by  Standard  Bidding  Document  for  Road

Connectivity  Project  for  Left  Wing  Extremism

Affected  Areas  (RCPLWEA)  for  construction  and

Maintenance  -  issued  by  the  National  Rural  Roads

Development Agency, Ministry of Rural Development,

2

C.A.@S.L.P.(c) No.8185 of 2019

Government of India.  The appellant and the fourth

respondent  participated  in  the  tender  process  by

submitting  the  requisite  documents.  As  per  the

tender conditions, there is a requirement to furnish

necessary certificates from the District Officers of

R & B Department to exhibit proof of owning “Batch

Type Hot Mix Plant” of capacity 100-120 TPH and that

such  “Batch  Type  Hot  Mix  Plant”  shall  be  located

within a distance of 100 kilometers from the last

point of working reach, for which, bids are invited.

The  relevant  clause  in  the  tender  document  under

Clause 4.4 B(b) reads as under:-

“Each bidder must demonstrate:

(i) “availability  for  construction work, either owned, or on lease or on hire, of the key equipment (except Batch Type  Hot  Mix  Plant) stated  in  the Appendix  to  ITB  including  equipments required  for  establishing  field laboratory  to  perform  mandatory  tests, and those stated in the Appendix to ITB; Note:  For Batch Type Hot Mix Plant, as per  G.O.Rt.  No.211,  T.R&B(R.1)Dept., Dt.21-04-2018

(a) The bidders shall exhibit proof of owning “Batch Type Hot Mix Plant” of capacity 100-120 TPH and such Batch Type Hot Mix Plant shall be located within a distance of 100 Kms from the last point of  working  reach  for  which  bids  are invited.  

3

C.A.@S.L.P.(c) No.8185 of 2019

(b) The bidders to furnish necessary certificates from the concerned District Officers of R & B where such plants have been located and the District Officers of R & B shall inspect and certify with route  maps  on  the  (1)  location  (2) distance from last point of work reach and  (3)  ownership  of  such  plants  for which the bidders are intending to bid.   

(c) The  Superintendent  Engineer  of R  &  B  concerned  shall  ensure  the veracity  of  such  certificate/documents uploaded  by  the  bidders  in  support  of the  eligibility  criteria  on  machinery before  finalizing  the  technical evaluation of the bids.”

5.  The Bid Document consists of two parts, Part-I

&  Part-II  i.e  technical  bid  and  price  bid

respectively.

6.  Pursuant  to  tender  notice,  there  were  two

offers by the bidders i.e the fourth respondent as

well  as  the  appellant  herein.  The  technical  bids

were opened on 18.05.2018 at 04:00 P.M. and as the

fourth  respondent  as  well  as  the  appellant  were

qualified in the technical bid, the Part-II bid i.e

the price bid was opened on 31.05.2018 at 03:00 P.M.

7. In the price bid, the fourth respondent herein,

offered  to  execute  the  work  at  the  cost  of

Rs.31,51,27,865.82  whereas,  the  appellant  offered

the  cost  of  Rs.31,31,69,427.04  for  executing  the

4

C.A.@S.L.P.(c) No.8185 of 2019

work. As much as the offer made by the appellant was

lowest,  the  Letter  of  Intent  was  issued  to  the

appellant.

8. As  per  the  tender  conditions,  the  appellant

herein  has  produced  the  document  issued  by  the

Executive Engineer, Roads and Buildings Department,

Mahabubabad  Division,  showing  distance  from  the

“Batch Type Hot Mix Plant” to that of the site at

99.05  kilometers.  Disputing  correctness  of  such

distance, the fourth respondent/ writ petitioner has

on  18.05.2018,  filed  a  complaint  before  the

concerned authority i.e. the Chief Engineer. On such

complaint,  the  Chief  Engineer,  called  for  a

verification  report  from  the  Superintending

Engineer, R & B Circle, Warangal. As per the report

dated  30.05.2018  submitted  by  the  Superintending

Engineer, the actual distance between the Hot Mix

Plant and the last point of working reach was shown

at  101.50  kilometers.  In  the  same  report,  the

Superintending  Engineer,  Warangal,  has  also

mentioned that the distance when measured from an

alternate route, the actual distance from the Hot

5

C.A.@S.L.P.(c) No.8185 of 2019

Mix Plant to the last point of working reach comes

to 99.90 kilometers.

9. In  view  of  the  dispute  raised  by  the  fourth

respondent again, about the correctness of distances

mentioned  in  the  report  submitted  by  the

Superintending  Engineer,  Warangal,  the  Chief

Engineer vide his letter dated 11.06.2018, requested

the Superintending Engineer, Karimnagar, to verify

the distance between the location from the point of

Hot Mix Plant, owned by the appellant, to that of

the  last  point  of  working  reach  of  the  site  in

question.

10. Vide report dated 04.07.2018, the Superintending

Engineer,  Karimnagar  informed  the  Chief  Engineer

that the distance between the Hot Mix Plant, owned

by the appellant and the last point of working reach

is 98.1 kilometers.

11. In  the  report  dated  04.07.2018,  filed  by  the

Superintending  Engineer,  Karimnagar,  addressed  to

the Chief Engineer, as the distance between Hot Mix

Plant owned by the appellant and the last point of

working reach was shown at 98.1 kilometers, same was

accepted by the authorities and tender was finalized

6

C.A.@S.L.P.(c) No.8185 of 2019

in favour of the appellant. The fourth respondent

has  questioned  the  same  by  way  of  Writ  Petition

filed  under  Article  226  of  the  Constitution  of

India.

12. The learned Single Judge of the High Court has

held  that  in  absence  of  any  specific  mala  fides

against  any  individual,  the  re-verification

undertaken,  about  the  distance,  by  the  Chief

Engineer, is not illegal. Learned Single Judge has

observed that when the tender conditions permit the

tenderer to make objection, which obviously, require

consideration, by necessary implication, permit the

tendering authority to re-verify and re-consider the

material submitted before him. It is observed that

when the fourth respondent has raised an objection

against  the  certificate  issued  in  favour  of  the

appellant,  no  fault  can  be  attributed  to  the

authorities in getting the re-verification done and

obtaining  a  report  from  an  independent  authority.

Having  found  that  there  is  no  illegality  or

arbitrariness  on  the  part  of  the  authorities,  in

decision-making  process,  learned  Single  Judge

7

C.A.@S.L.P.(c) No.8185 of 2019

dismissed  the  Writ  Petition  vide  order  dated

25.02.2019.  

13. When  the  said  order  is  questioned  by  way  of

intra court appeal under clause 15 of the Letters

Patent,  the  Division  Bench  of  the  High  Court  has

found fault with the report of the Superintending

Engineer, Warangal, to the extent in giving distance

particulars from the alternate route. Further, it is

observed that when the report of the Superintending

Engineer,  Warangal,  was  not  accepted,  the  Chief

Engineer should not have sought a second report from

the  Superintending  Engineer,  Karimnagar.   In  the

order it is stated that the jurisdictional Engineer

is  Superintending  Engineer,  Warangal  but  not

Superintending Engineer, Karimnagar. It is stated in

the  order  that  since  the  report  submitted  by  the

Superintending Engineer, Karimnagar was not legally

justified, as such, it could not have been relied on

to finalize tender in favour of the appellant.

14. On  the  aforesaid  grounds,  the  Division  Bench

allowed the intra court appeal, by impugned order,

with a direction to award the work in question, on

8

C.A.@S.L.P.(c) No.8185 of 2019

the  basis  of  a  report  submitted  by  the

Superintending Engineer, Warangal.

15. Heard  Sri  B.Adinarayana  Rao,  learned  senior

counsel appearing for the appellant, Sri R. Basant,

learned  senior  counsel  appearing  for  the  fourth

respondent/  writ  petitioner  and  Sri  S.Udaya  Kumar

Sagar, learned counsel appearing for the State.

16. It  is  contended  by  Sri  B.Adinarayana  Rao,

learned senior counsel, appearing for the appellant

that  as  per  the  tender  conditions,  bidder  must

demonstrate  proof  of  owning  ‘Batch  Type  Hot  Mix

Plant’ of the capacity of 100-120 TPH, which shall

be located within a distance of 100 kilometers from

the last point of working reach, for which, bids are

invited. As per the tender conditions, bidders are

required to furnish necessary certificates, issued

by the District Officers of R & B Department.

17. It is not in dispute that the appellant owns a

Hot Mix Plant and at the request of the appellant,

the District Officers have issued a certificate. The

said certificate was to be filed along with ‘Part A’

of the documents, relating to technical bid.

9

C.A.@S.L.P.(c) No.8185 of 2019

18. It  is  submitted  that,  as  per  the  tender

conditions, the result of evaluation of Part-I of

the  bids  shall  be  made  public  on  e-procurement

systems, following which, there will be a period of

five  working  days,  during  which  any  bidder  may

submit  complaint  which  shall  be  considered  for

resolution before opening Part-II of the bid.

19. It is contended that in this case, initially a

certificate was furnished by the concerned District

Officer of R & B Department, showing the distance

below 100 kilometers but when a complaint is filed

by  the  fourth  respondent/writ  petitioner,

verification was done by calling a report from the

Superintending Engineer, Warangal.

20. It is submitted that Superintending Engineer, on

its  own,  has  certified  in  his  report  dated

30.05.2018  that  as  per  the  original  route,  the

distance  is  101.50  kilometers  and  by  alternate

route, the distance is 99.90 kilometers, as per the

Google map.

21. It is further submitted that apart from the said

certification, an independent report is also called

for  from  the  Superintending  Engineer,  Karimnagar,

10

C.A.@S.L.P.(c) No.8185 of 2019

which  is  reported  vide  report  dated  04.07.2018,

showing  the  distance  between  the  ‘Hot  Mix  Plant’

owned  by  the  appellant  and  the  ‘last  point  of

working  reach’  of  the  work  in  question,  at  98.1

kilometers. It is submitted that when a complaint is

filed by the fourth respondent in terms of Para 22.6

of the Standard Bidding Document, it is always open

for the authorities to call for a report from the

independent  authority  other  than  the  officers

concerned in the circle/division in question.

22. It  is  submitted  by  learned  counsel  that

accepting the report submitted by the Superintending

Engineer, Karimnagar, the price bid was opened and

the appellant  has offered to execute the work at a

cost  of  Rs.31,31,69,427.04,  as  against  the  cost

quoted  by  the  fourth  respondent  which  is

Rs.31,51,27,865.82. In view of dispute raised by the

fourth respondent, the Chief Engineer concerned has

sought  re-verification  of  the  distance  from  the

Superintending Engineer, R & B Circle, Karimnagar,

who, vide report dated 04.07.2018, based on the Trip

Meter of the vehicle, had categorically opined that

the  Hot  Mix  Plant  of  the  appellant  was  located

11

C.A.@S.L.P.(c) No.8185 of 2019

within 100 kilometers. It is submitted that there

being  no  specific  mala  fides,  tendering  authority

opened  the  price  bid  only  after  satisfying  the

distance being less than 100 kilometers.

23.  It  is  submitted  that  as  per  the  tender

conditions,  there  is  no  prescribed  procedure  for

verification, in the event of any complaint by one

of  the  bidders,  in  terms  of  Para  22.6  of  the

Standard Bidding Document. It is submitted that the

learned Single Judge has rightly refused to exercise

the  jurisdiction  under  Article  226  of  the

Constitution  of  India  as  much  as  there  is  no

illegality or arbitrariness in the decision-making

process.  It  is  submitted  that  the  well  reasoned

order of the learned Single Judge is interfered in

the intra court appeal by impugned order, without

assigning valid reasons and findings recorded in the

impugned  order  run  contrary  to  the  tender

conditions.  

24. In support of his arguments, Sri B. Adinarayana

Rao,  learned  senior  counsel,  has  relied  on  the

following judgments:

12

C.A.@S.L.P.(c) No.8185 of 2019

1. Tata Cellular v. Union of India.1

2. Raunaq International Ltd. v. I.V.R Constructions Ltd.2

3. Afcons  Infrastructure  Limited  v.  Nagpur  Metro Rail Corporation Limited.3

4. Consortium of Titagarh Firema Adler v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. (NMRCL).4

5. Municipal Corporation, Ujjain and Anr. v. BVG India Ltd. & Ors.5

and also judgment of this Court, in the case of The

Silppi Constructions Contractors v. Union of India

and Anr. Etc. Etc.6

25. On the other hand, Sri R.Basant, learned senior

counsel,  appearing  for  the  fourth  respondent/writ

petitioner  states  that  there  are  no  grounds  to

interfere  with  the  impugned  order  passed  by  the

Division Bench of the High Court. It is submitted

that the Superintending Engineer, Warangal, in his

report dated 30.05.2018, has shown the distance at

101.50 kilometers, and at the same time, on his own,

also  mentioned  the  distance  to  be  at  99.90

kilometers measured from an alternate route. It is

11994(6) SCC 651. 21991(1) SCC 492. 32016(16) SCC 818. 42017(7) SCC 486. 52018(5) SCC 462. 6 SLP(c) Nos. 13802-13805 of 2019 decided on 21.06.2019.

13

C.A.@S.L.P.(c) No.8185 of 2019

further  submitted  that  the  Chief  Engineer  has

committed  error  in  calling  the  report  from  the

Superintending Engineer, Karimnagar, who is not the

concerned  jurisdictional  Superintending  Engineer.

When  it  is  found  that,  as  per  the  initial

certificate submitted by the appellant, which shows

the distance to be more than 100 kilometers, there

is no reason or justification either to go by the

distance, as measured from the alternate route in

the  report  dated  30.05.2018,  or  to  go  by  another

report of the Chief Engineer, which is based on the

information  furnished  by  the  Superintending

Engineer, Karimnagar.  

26. Finally,  it  is  submitted  by  Sri  R.  Basant,

learned senior counsel that there are no grounds to

interfere  in  the  impugned  order  in  this  appeal,

filed  under  Article  136  of  the  Constitution  of

India.  

27.  In  support  of  his  arguments,  Sri  R.Basant,

learned  Senior  counsel  has  also  relied  on  the

following judgments:

1. Poddar Steel Corporation v. Ganesh Engineering Works.7

7 (1991)3 SCC 273.

14

C.A.@S.L.P.(c) No.8185 of 2019

2. BSN Joshi & SWons Ltd. v. Nmair Coal Services Ltd. and Ors.8

3. Bakshi Security and Personnel Services Pvt. Ltd. v.  Devkishan  Computed  Private  Limited  and others.9

4. Central Coalfields Limited and others v. SLL-SML and others.10

Further,  he  has  also  relied  on  the  following

judgments:

5. Pritam Singh v. State.11

6. Penu  Balakrishna  Iyer  &  Ors.  v.  Ariya  M. Ramaswamy Iyer & Ors.12

7. Shaikh Ali Hossain & Ors. v. Shaikh Showkat Ali & Anr.13

wherein, the scope of interference by this Court is

discussed under Article 136 of the Constitution of

India.  

28. Having heard the learned senior counsels on both

sides, we have carefully perused the impugned order

passed by the Division Bench of the High Court and

the order passed by learned Single Judge and other

material placed on record.

8 (2006)11 SCC 548. 9 (2016)8 SCC 446. 10 (2016)8 SCC 622. 11 AIR 1950 SC 169. 12 AIR 1965 SC 195. 13 (2008)8 SCC 180.

15

C.A.@S.L.P.(c) No.8185 of 2019

29. From a reading of the tender conditions relating

to work in question, it is clear that the bidders

shall exhibit proof of owning “Batch Type Hot Mix

Plant”  of  capacity  of  100-120  TPH  and  such  plant

shall be located within a distance of 100 kilometers

from  the  last  point  of  working  reach,  for  which,

bids are invited. In proof of owning such a plant

within  100  kilometers,  bidders  are  required  to

obtain  necessary  certificates  from  the  concerned

District Officers of R & B Department, where such

plants have been located and the District Officers

of R & B Department shall inspect and certify with

route maps on the location; distance from the last

point of work reach; and ownership of such plants,

for which, bidders are intending to bid. It is clear

from  the  aforesaid  condition,  which  is  to  be

construed as essential, that the bidder shall own a

‘Hot Mix Plant’ within a distance of 100 kilometers

from the last point of working reach. As per clause

22.6  of  the  tender  conditions,  the  result  of

evaluation  of  Part-I  of  the  bids  shall  be  made

public  on  e-procurement  systems,  following  which,

there shall be a period of five working days, during

16

C.A.@S.L.P.(c) No.8185 of 2019

which, any bidder may submit complaint, which shall

be considered, before opening Part-II of the bid. It

is  clear  from  the  aforesaid  clause  under  tender

document, if any of the bidder disputes the distance

quoted by other bidder, it is open for such bidder

to  make  a  complaint,  which  shall  be  considered,

before  opening  of  Part-II  of  the  bid. Once  a

complaint is filed, there is no definite procedure

prescribed as to how such complaint is to be dealt.

In the case on hand, it is clear from the material

on record that, when a complaint is filed by the

fourth respondent/writ petitioner, after evaluation

of Part-I of the bids, at first instance, a report

is prepared by the Superintending Engineer, Warangal

dated  30.05.2018,  stating  that  as  per  the  route

given  by  the  appellant,  distance  is  101.50

kilometers and if measured from the alternate route

it comes to 99.90 kilometers. At this stage, it is

to be mentioned that, it is the specific case of the

appellant  that  it  has  not  made  any  request  for

measuring the distance from the alternate route. In

view of the variation in distance, from its earlier

report, it appears, the Chief Engineer has requested

17

C.A.@S.L.P.(c) No.8185 of 2019

the Superintending Engineer, Karimnagar, to verify

and  report.  The  Superintending  Engineer,  vide  his

report dated 04.07.2018, informed the Chief Engineer

that  he  has  measured  the  distance  from  the

‘odometer’ and  the  distance  between  the  Hot  Mix

Plant and the last point of working reach was 98.1

kilometers. Accepting the said report, bid of the

appellant was opened and it is clear from the record

that the appellant has quoted offer to execute the

work in question at Rs.31,31,69,427.04 whereas, the

fourth respondent has quoted at Rs.31,51,27,865.82

to execute the work. The offer of the appellant is

nearly Rupees Twenty Lakh less than the rate quoted

by the fourth respondent/writ petitioner.

30. The  learned  Single  Judge,  by  observing  that

there  being  no  specific  mala  fides  against  any

individual,  has  held  that,  no  fault  can  be

attributed  to  the  Chief  Engineer  in  getting  the

re-verification done, by obtaining a report from the

independent  authority.  Further,  by  recording  a

finding that the scope of interference in the matter

relating to tenders, in exercise of power conferred

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is

18

C.A.@S.L.P.(c) No.8185 of 2019

confined  to  decision-making  process  only,  has

dismissed the Writ Petition.

31. From a reading of the impugned order, it appears

that the Division Bench has reversed the order of

the learned Single Judge, only on the ground that

the  report  received  from  the  Superintending

Engineer, Karimnagar, is not in accordance with the

procedure. The Division Bench of the High Court has

also held that the Chief Engineer had stepped out of

his jurisdiction, when he called a report from the

Superintending Engineer, Karimnagar.

32. We  are  not  convinced,  with  such  a  view,  as

expressed above, by the Division Bench of the High

Court. First of all, it is to be noticed that there

is no dispute that appellant owns a ‘Hot Mix Plant’,

as  required  in  the  tender  conditions.  It  is  his

specific  case  that  the  location  of  such  Hot  Mix

Plant is within 100 kilometers, as required. It is

true that when a complaint is made by the fourth

respondent/writ  petitioner,  it  was  found  that  the

distance  is  101.50  kilometers  from  one  route  and

99.90  kilometers  from  the  other  route.  From  the

alternate  route,  shown  in  the  report  dated

19

C.A.@S.L.P.(c) No.8185 of 2019

30.05.2018,  submitted  by  the  Superintending

Engineer, Warangal, it is at a distance less than

100 kilometers.

33. We  find  nothing  wrong  in  the  first  report,

mentioning the distance from the alternate route. In

view of such discrepancy in the report, the Chief

Engineer has further called for a report from the

Superintending Engineer, Karimnagar, an independent

authority, who has further, after re-verification,

submitted  a  report  dated  04.07.2018,  stating  that

the distance is only 98.1 kilometers. To make sure

whether  the  plant  of  the  appellant  is  within  the

distance of 100 kilometers or not, in compliance of

the tender conditions, in view of the dispute raised

by  the  fourth  respondent/writ  petitioner  and  the

report  dated  30.05.2018,  the  Chief  Engineer  got

re-verified  from  an  independent  authority  by

addressing  to  Superintendent  Engineer,  Karimnagar.

In  absence  of  any  prescribed  procedure  for

verification, it was fair on the part of the Chief

Engineer to call for a report from an independent

Superintending  Engineer  i.e.  the  Superintending

Engineer, Karimnagar. There is no definite procedure

20

C.A.@S.L.P.(c) No.8185 of 2019

for verification in the event of any complaint filed

by any of the bidders, as contemplated under clause

22.6 of the tender conditions. The Division Bench

has committed an error, in recording a finding that,

calling  for  a  report  from  the  Superintending

Engineer, Karimnagar, by the Chief Engineer, is not

in accordance with the procedure.

34. Having regard to the nature of dispute, it was

always open for the Chief Engineer to call for a

report  from  an  independent  authority  i.e.

Superintending  Engineer,  Karimnagar.  Such  a

procedure adopted by the Chief Engineer was fair and

cannot be said to be either illegal or arbitrary.

Such a report is made basis in the decision-making

process,  to  open  the  bid  of  the  appellant  in

Part-II.

35. In the case of Tata Cellular v. Union of India1,

while considering the scope of judicial review, in

matters  relating  to  Government  contracts-tenders,

this Court has held that the State’s decision/action

must  be  in  consonance  of  Article  14  of  the

Constitution  of  India.  The  scope  is  confined  to

examine only the decision-making process and not the

21

C.A.@S.L.P.(c) No.8185 of 2019

merits of the decision itself. It is specifically

held that courts cannot sit as appellate court while

exercising power of review in matters relating to

contracts and tenders.

36. In the case of Afcons Infrastructure Limited v.

Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Limited and Another3,

this  Court  found  fault  in  the  High  Court,  in

interfering with the decision of the authority in a

matter  relating  to  contracts  and  tenders,  without

there  being  any  mala  fides  or  irrationality  or

perversity  in  the  procedure  adopted  by  the

authorities.

37. In  the case  of  Consortium  of Titagarh  Firema

Adler v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.4,  while

considering the scope of judicial review, in matters

relating to power of contracts, this Court has held

that exercise of power of judicial review is called

for, if the approach is arbitrary or mala fide or

procedure adopted is meant to favour someone.

38. Further, in the case of  Municipal Corporation,

Ujjain and Anr. v. BVG India Ltd. & Ors.5, this Court

has  held  that,  while  considering  the  scope  of

judicial review, in matters relating to contracts,

22

C.A.@S.L.P.(c) No.8185 of 2019

it  is  held  that  the  same  is  restricted  to

decision-making process but not the decision itself.

It  is  held  that  the  High  Court  cannot  act  as

appellate court to review tender evaluation and set

aside the award of tender.

39. All the judgments referred above, support the

case of the appellant, as much as, we are of the

view  that  the  procedure  adopted  by  the  tendering

authority is fair, just and reasonable. In absence

of any specific mala fides and grant of exemption

from any essential conditions of tender, authorities

have  acted  within  their  authority,  as  such,  it

cannot  be  construed  either  as  a  relaxation  or

violation of tender conditions.

40.  The  learned  senior  counsel,  Sri  Basant,

appearing for the fourth respondent/writ petitioner,

has relied on the judgments in the case of  Poddar

Steel Corporation v. Ganesh Engineering Works7, BSN

Joshi & SWons Ltd. v. Nmair Coal Services Ltd. and

Ors8 Bakshi Security and Personnel Services Pvt. Ltd.

v.  Devkishan  Computed  Private  Limited  and  Ors.9;

Central Coalfields Limited and others v. SLL-SML and

others10,  in  support  of  his  arguments  that  the

23

C.A.@S.L.P.(c) No.8185 of 2019

essential  clauses  of  a  tender  should  be  enforced

strictly and no deviation is permissible under law.

41. We are of the view that the above said judgments

have no application to the facts of this case, for

the reason that, it is not a case of violation of

any  tender  conditions.  Further,  pleading  that  no

case is made out by the appellant for interference

under  Article  136  of  the  Constitution  of  India,

learned  counsel,  in  support  of  his  argument,  has

relied on judgment in the case of  Pritam Singh v.

State11; Penu Balakrishna Iyer & Ors. v. Ariya M.

Ramaswamy Iyer & Ors.12; Shaikh Ali Hossain & Ors. v.

Shaikh Showkat Ali & Anr.13

42. With reference to the same, it is to be noticed

that  the  power  conferred  on  this  Court,  under

Article  136  of  the  Constitution  of  India,  is  the

corrective jurisdiction to settle the law. Further,

it is to be noticed that when the learned Single

Judge of the High Court has found that the process

of re-verification done by the Chief Engineer, on

the dispute in question, is fair and acceptable for

arriving at a decision, but the Division Bench has

set aside such order, only on the ground that the

24

C.A.@S.L.P.(c) No.8185 of 2019

report  is  called  for  from  the  Superintending

Engineer,  Karimnagar,  who  is  not  the  concerned

Engineer, as per the procedure. In absence of any

prescribed procedure to deal with complaints, it was

fair on the part of the Chief Engineer, in calling a

report  from  the  independent  authority,  other  than

the jurisdictional officers. As the issue does not

relate  to  strict  construction  of  territorial

jurisdiction,  it  is  always  open  for  the

decision-making authority, to have a report from the

independent  authority,  to  arrive  at  the  just

decision.

43. Further, in the case of Management of Narendra &

Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Workmen of Narendra & Company14,

while  considering  the  scope  of  the  intra  court

appeal, this Court has held that, unless Appellate

Bench concludes that findings of the learned Single

Judge are perverse, it shall not disturb the same.

44. For the aforesaid reasons, we allow this appeal

and set aside the order dated 13.03.2019 passed in

Writ Appeal No. 153 of 2019, by the High Court of

Telangana at Hyderabad and confirm the order dated

14  (2016) 3 SCC 340

25

C.A.@S.L.P.(c) No.8185 of 2019

25.02.2019  passed  by  the  learned  Single  Judge  in

Writ  Petition  No.  23501  of  2018.  No  order  as  to

costs.

...................J. [S. Abdul Nazeer]

...................J. [R. Subhash Reddy]

New Delhi; August 28,2019

26