M/S N RAMACHANDRA REDDYversusTHE STATE OF TELANGANA & ORS

792                       [2019]
               SUPREME COURT     11 S.C.R. 792
                              REPORTS                      [2019] 11 S.C.R.


A                      M/S N RAMACHANDRA REDDY
                                        v.
                      THE STATE OF TELANGANA & ORS
                         (Civil Appeal No. 6673 of 2019)
B                              AUGUST 28, 2019
          [S. ABDUL NAZEER AND R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.]
            Tender:
             Tender for construction of road – As per tender condition
C     ‘Batch Type Hot Mix Plant’ owned by the bidder was required to be
      located within a distance of 100 kilometers from the last point of
      working reach – Letter of intent issued to the appellant – Complaint
      by another bidder (respondent No.4) disputing the correctness of
      distance in the case of the appellant – In verification report
      Superintending Engineer found the actual distance at 101.50 km.
D
      and from alternate route found the distance at 99.90 km. – Finding
      in the report again questioned by respondent No. 4 – By another
      verification report by another Superintending Engineer of another
      jurisdiction, the distance was found as 98.1 km. – Tender finalized
      in favour of appellant – Writ petition – Single Judge of High court
E     dismissed the petition – In writ appeal Division Bench of High Court
      allowing the appeal found fault with the report of the superintending
      Engineer in giving distance particulars from the alternate route and
      found that subsequent report not being of jurisdictional engineer
      could not have been relied upon – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held:
      There is nothing wrong in the first report, mentioning the distance
F
      from alternate route – In the absence of any prescribed procedure
      for verification, it was fair to call for report from an independent
      Superintending Engineer of different jurisdiction – The procedure
      adopted by tendering authority is fair, just and reasonable.
            Judicial Review:
G
             Scope of judicial review – In matter relating to contracts and
      tenders – Held: In matter relating to contracts/tenders, courts cannot
      sit as appellate court while exercising power of judicial review –
      Such power is called for only if the approach is arbitrary or mala
      fide or procedure adopted is meant to favour someone.
H
                                       792
      M/S N RAMACHANDRA REDDY v. THE STATE OF                           793
                 TELANGANA & ORS

      Letters Patent:                                                   A
      Intra-court appeal – Power of court – Scope of – Held:
Appellate Bench not to disturb the finding of Single Judge unless
such finding is concluded as perverse.
      Constitution of India:
                                                                        B
       Art. 136 – Jurisdiction under – Nature of – Held: Jurisdiction
u/Art. 136 is corrective jurisdiction to settle the law.
      Allowing the appeal, the Court
      HELD: 1.1 It is clear from the condition relating to work in
question, which is to be construed as essential, that the bidder        C
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 which, any         D
bidder may submit complaint, which shall be considered, before
opening 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. [Para 29][804-G; 805-A-B]
      1.2 In the present case, it is clear from the material on
                                                                        E
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. It is the        F
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 the Superintending Engineer,
Karimnagar, to verify and report. The Superintending Engineer,
vide his report dated 04.07.2018, informed the Chief Engineer           G
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

                                                                        H
794            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2019] 11 S.C.R.


A     appellant was opened and it is clear from the record that the offer
      of the appellant is nearly Rupees Twenty Lakh less than the rate
      quoted by the fourth respondent/writ petitioner. [Para 29][805-
      B-E]
              1.3 There is no dispute that appellant owns a ‘Hot Mix
B     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
C     30.05.2018, submitted by the Superintending Engineer, Warangal,
      it is at a distance less than 100 kilometers. There is 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,
D
      after re-verification, submitted a report dated 04.07.2018, stating
      that the distance is only 98.1 kilometers. [Paras 32, 33] [806-B-
      D]
            1.4 There is no definite procedure for verification, in the
      event of any complaint filed by any of the bidders, as contemplated
E     under clause 22.6 of the tender conditions. 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. Such a procedure adopted by the Chief Engineer
F     was fair and cannot be said to be either illegal or arbitrary. The
      Division Bench of High Court 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. [Paras 29, 32, 33, 34]
      [806-E-G]
G
            Poddar Steel Corporation v. Ganesh Engineering Works
            (1991) 3 SCC 273 : [1991] 2 SCR 696; BSN Joshi &
            SWons Ltd. v. Nmair Coal Services Ltd. and Ors (2006)11
            SCC 548 : [2006] 8 Suppl. SCR 11; Bakshi Security

H
      M/S N RAMACHANDRA REDDY v. THE STATE OF                           795
                 TELANGANA & ORS

      and Personnel Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Devkishan Computed            A
      Private Limited and others (2016) 8 SCC 446 : [2016]
      3 SCR 310; Central Coalfields Limited and others v.
      SLL-SML and others (2016) 8 SCC 622 : [2016] 4 SCR
      890 – distinguished.
      2.1 The State’s decision/action must be in consonance of          B
Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is specifically held that
courts cannot sit as appellate court while exercising power of
review in matters relating to contracts and tenders. 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.
The scope is confined to examine only the decision-making               C
process and not the merits of the decision itself. [Paras 35, 37]
[807-A-B, D]
      2.2 The procedure adopted by the tendering authority in
the present case is fair, just and reasonable. In absence of any
specific mala fides and grant of exemption from any essential           D
conditions of tender, authorities have acted within their authority,
as such, it cannot be construed either as a relaxation or violation
of tender conditions. [Para 39][807-F]
      Tata Cellular v. Union of India (1994) (6) SCC 651 :
      [1994] 2 Suppl. SCR 122; Afcons Infrastructure Limited            E
      v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Limited (2016) (16)
      SCC 818 : [2016] 3 SCR 551; Consortium of Titagarh
      Firema Adler v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.
      (NMRCL) (2017) (7) SCC 486 : [2017] 5 SCR 337;
      Municipal Corporation, Ujjain and Anr. v. BVG India               F
      Ltd. & Ors (2018) (5) SCC 462 : [2018] 6 SCR 861 –
      relied on.
      Raunaq International Ltd. v. I.V.R Constructions Ltd
      (1999) (1) SCC 492 : [1998] 3 Suppl. SCR 421; The
      Silppi Constructions Contractors v. Union of India and
                                                                        G
      Anr. Etc. Etc. (2019) (11) SCALE 592 – referred to.
      3. In the intra court appeal unless Appellate Bench
concludes that findings of the Single Judge are perverse, it shall
not disturb the same. [Para 43] [808-F]
                                                                        H
796           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2019] 11 S.C.R.


A           Management of Narendra & Company Pvt. Ltd. v.
            Workmen of Narendra & Company (2016) 3 SCC 340 :
            [2016] 1 SCR 597 – relied on.
            4. The power conferred on this Court, under Article 136 of
      the Constitution of India, is the corrective jurisdiction to settle
B     the law. As the issue in the present case 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. [Para 42][808-C, E]
            Pritam Singh v. State AIR 1950 SC 169 : [1950] SCR
C
            453; Penu Balakrishna Iyer & Ors. v. Ariya M.
            Ramaswamy Iyer & Ors. AIR 1965 SC 195 : [1964]
            SCR 49; Shaikh Ali Hossain & Ors. v. Shaikh Showkat
            Ali & Anr. (2008) 8 SCC 180 : [2008] 8 SCR 867 –
            referred to.
D
                            Case Law Reference
      [1998] 3 Suppl. SCR 421         referred to          Para 24
      2019 (11) SCALE 592             referred to          Para 24

E     [1994] 2 Suppl. SCR 122         relied on            Para 35
      [2016] 3 SCR 551                relied on            Para 36
      [2017] 5 SCR337                 relied on            Para 37
      [2018] 6 SCR 861                relied on            Para 38
F     [1991] 2 SCR 696                distinguished        Para 40
      [2006] 8 Suppl. SCR 11          distinguished        Para 40
      [2016] 3 SCR 310                distinguished        Para 40
      [2016] 4 SCR 890                distinguished        Para 40
G
      [1950] SCR 453                  referred to          Para 43
      [1964] SCR 49                   referred to          Para 43
      [2008] 8 SCR 867                referred to          Para 43

H
         M/S N RAMACHANDRA REDDY v. THE STATE OF                               797
                    TELANGANA & ORS

      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6673                      A
of 2019.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 13.03.2019 of the High
Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad in Writ Appeal No. 153
of 2019.
      B. Adinarayana Rao, Sr. Adv., Sumanth Nookala, Praveen Reddy,            B
Advs. for the Appellant.
      R. Basant, Sr. Adv., S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Ms. Swati Bhardwaj,
Sadineni Ravi Kumar, M. Sudheer Kumar, Advs. for the Respondents
         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                            C
         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
                                                                               D
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 of Telangana at Hyderabad, wherein it has challenged the
                                                                               E
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            F
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         G
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
                                                                               H
798               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2019] 11 S.C.R.


A     Maintenance - issued by the National Rural Roads Development Agency,
      Ministry of Rural Development, 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
B     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:-

C           “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
D           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
E                   Hot Mix Plant shall be located within a distance of 100
                    Kms from the last point of working reach for which bids
                    are invited.
            (b)     The bidders to furnish necessary certificates from the
                    concerned District Officers of R & B where such plants
F                   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
G                   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.”

H
       M/S N RAMACHANDRA REDDY v. THE STATE OF                                 799
        TELANGANA & ORS [R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.]

      5. The Bid Document consists of two parts, Part-I & Part-II i.e          A
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,       B
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 work. As much as the
offer made by the appellant was lowest, the Letter of Intent was issued        C
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         D
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                  E
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 Mix Plant to the last point of working reach
comes to 99.90 kilometers.                                                     F

       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          G
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
                                                                               H
800             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2019] 11 S.C.R.


A     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
B     working reach was shown at 98.1 kilometers, same was accepted by
      the authorities and tender was finalized 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
C     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
D     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,
E     learned Single Judge 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,
F     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,
G     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.

H
       M/S N RAMACHANDRA REDDY v. THE STATE OF                                 801
        TELANGANA & ORS [R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.]

       14. On the aforesaid grounds, the Division Bench allowed the            A
intra court appeal, by impugned order, with a direction to award the
work in question, on 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             B
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’             C
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.
                                                                               D
       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.
       18. It is submitted that, as per the tender conditions, the result of   E
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      F
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
                                                                               G
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,
                                                                               H
802             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2019] 11 S.C.R.


A     Karimnagar, 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
B
      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
C     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
D     located 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
E     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
F     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:

G            1. Tata Cellular v. Union of India.1
             2. Raunaq International Ltd. v. I.V.R Constructions Ltd.2

      1
        1994(6) SCC 651.
      2
        1991(1) SCC 492.
      3
        2016(16) SCC 818.
H
       M/S N RAMACHANDRA REDDY v. THE STATE OF                                 803
        TELANGANA & ORS [R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.]

     3. Afcons Infrastructure Limited v. Nagpur Metro Rail                     A
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                                                                        B

     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      C
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 further submitted that the Chief Engineer has committed error in calling    D
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      E
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,   F
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
                                                                               G



5
  2018(5) SCC 462.
6
   SLP(c) Nos. 13802-13805 of 2019 decided on 21.06.2019.
7
  (1991)3 SCC 273.                                                             H
804               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2019] 11 S.C.R.


A              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
B     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
C
               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
D     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.
             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
E     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
F     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
G
      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.
H     13
         (2008)8 SCC 180.
       M/S N RAMACHANDRA REDDY v. THE STATE OF                                     805
        TELANGANA & ORS [R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.]

of evaluation of Part-I of the bids shall be made public on e-procurement          A
systems, following which, there shall be a period of five working days,
during 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        B
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            C
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 the Superintending Engineer,          D
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
                                                                                   E
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              F
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            G
India, is 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,
                                                                                   H
806             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2019] 11 S.C.R.


A     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,
B     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
C     from the other route. From the alternate route, shown in the report dated
      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
D     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
E     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
F     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.

G            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.
H
       M/S N RAMACHANDRA REDDY v. THE STATE OF                                  807
        TELANGANA & ORS [R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.]

        35. In the case of Tata Cellular v. Union of India1, while              A
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 merits of the decision itself. It is specifically held that courts cannot
sit as appellate court while exercising power of review in matters relating     B
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          C
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   D
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,
it is held that the same is restricted to decision-making process but not       E
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         F
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                G
& 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 essential clauses
                                                                                H
808                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2019] 11 S.C.R.


A     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
B     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
C     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 report is
D     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
E     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
F     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
G     25.02.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 23501
      of 2018. No order as to costs.


      Kalpana K. Tripathy                                               Appeal allowed.

      14
H          (2016) 3 SCC 340