AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Cyriac Joseph, C.J.—This writ appeal is filed against the judgment dated 13.9.2007 passed in Writ Petition No. 11951/2007, which was dismissed by the learned single Judge. The appellant is the petitioner in the writ petition. The challenge in the writ petition was against the pre-qualification criteria for procurement of TTF Sets contained in paragraph- 2 of Annexure-D-Tender Notification dated 5.7.2007. According to the said pre qualification criteria only the tire manufacturers who have supplied a minimum average of 5000 sets of Tyre, Tube and Flaps set per annum, in the preceding three years cut of 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06 and 2006-07 to any one of the OE chassis manufacture, i.e., Ashok Leyland, Tata Motors, Eicher, Swaraj Mazda and Volvo are eligible to participate, for supply of respective size/type of Tyre, Tubes and Flaps sets. The firm also should have minimum average of annual turnover of Rs. 500 crores in the preceding three years out of 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07 from the sale of Tyres, Tubes and Flaps. The contention of the petitioner was that the above conditions were inserted to favour certain persons and to exclude the petitioner. However, the learned single Judge after detailed consideration of the contentions of the petitioner came to the conclusion that there was no merit in the writ petition. The learned single Judge rejected the contention that the impugned conditions are arbitrary inasmuch as they were included only to favour certain other manufacturers in the tender proceedings by excluding the petitioner. The learned single Judge observed that though in earlier tenders the average annual turn over was pegged down at Rs. 200 crores, the second respondent in its wisdom thought it fit that the minimum annual turn over should be hiked from Rs. 200 crores to Rs. 500 crores. It has been hiked in the meeting of the Contract Management Group head on 4.8.2007. It was decided that the pre-requisite conditions for supply of tyres should be reviewed in order to incorporate wider participation and to rope in wider spectrum without altering the ground situation and accordingly the impugned conditions were incorporated in the tender notification. The learned Single Judge has held that the impugned conditions cannot be said to be actuated by mala fides and that it cannot be said that the impugned conditions were incorporated in the tender notification so as to oust the petitioner from participating in the tender. The learned single Judge further held that the decision to incorporate the impugned conditions could not be classified as arbitrary, discriminatory or mala fide. Relying on the various judgments of the Hon''ble Supreme Court the learned single Judge has held that the scope of interference in such matters is very limited and that the Court should not interfere where the decision of the authority is in respect of a policy matter unless it is shown that it is beyond the pale of discrimination or unreasonable. In view of the findings that the impugned conditions cannot be said to be discriminatory or unreasonable, the learned single Judge held that there was no question of interfering with the impugned conditions in Annexure-D-Notification. Having heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and having considered the materials placed on record we fully agree with the findings and conclusions of the learned single Judge. The reasons stated by the learned single Judge for arriving at the said findings and conclusions are factually correct and legally valid. In our view the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge does not call for any interference by this Court.
In the above circumstances, we hold that there is no merit in the writ appeal and the writ appeal is dismissed.