Aditya Sharma And Others v. Union Of India And Others
!
"
# "
"$%& '( "&)*+*', - - "# . "
.
" "
.
. /
"
.
" "
.
0!1 -
. ! . 1
!
" #
$%&' (((( ! . 12 -
3$4 ) #!
*$+,-+$./.0 *$.0../$ ./.0
!
* 1 ! 2 *$+,-+$./.0
. 3
..-4..5 ' 1
6'7 & .+)/./.. 68 $).7 2 !
))/) 2!9 3 !:
6''7 & /./../.0 68 $)07 2 !
; ) ,
! ))/) 9 637 0 3
! ! 3
0 3 !)<=,6 >)<=,?7
% 33 !2
)<=<' 12 3
@ !
!
!@ !!
! ! 3 3 !
;$ 637 637 3 637 $
!
3
3
2! = 3
! 2!
!! ! 23 ! !
' ! ! ! ' ./.. 2 - 2!3 ! 3
2
A
B
B
4
3 <-< 9
C
9
9
9 9
D; 9 E
!
<5/ 9
C ;
; D )/0) 9
F *
9
* D * )/0. 9
9
9
9 9 D 9 ))/) 9
;
; ; 9 D ; *
9
*
+ 3 !
))/+ 9
8 3
2!# D 9& 6E7
2!# % '2
2
!0)/0./..3 8 ,4)=)../.)68 $+7
! "# $ %
&'
() #
*
+,
" -
. /0-
() -
1 23 +2 4+44 - 3&
3 !
)5)../.)68 $-7 G
2!# 4 2 2
1 2 ! 3 8
* 6
.
/ $
($/) '$
6
7
5 3 !
.))../.)68 $57
!
2!
@ !0)/0./..3 8 H
! "# $ %
&'
( ) #
*
+,
" (- )
(
) -
1 +2 4+44 I , 3 ! /,/../..
G 3 !
3 3 !
/,/0./.. 2!9 ' 2
@
3 !8
2
3 8 /,/0./..
-
/
" (- )
8,8
" (- )
79:';
'7 '
' (2,3 <)
-
.
;
- /
" (- )
$
(
)
7
"
=
'$
.
1
6
<
"
2! # ! 3 !2 .)/=./..' 2
! 8 '2 2
2 3 !
2 1 8 2! 3 2
2!3 2
8
<-< 2!9 C
2 1 3 !
2 ; 9
3 8 1
.)/=./..68 $))7 2 /0-
+> +2 4+44
/ $ /
" 9
"
9
"
?
@
-
.
?
-
-
-
?
%
"
8,8
"
9
.
A
/0- /0$#
/
$
7
"
. /0-
+> +2 4+44 I )/ "
! !
.+)/./..68 $).7
8 2!9 E ! .+)/./.. 2
:
" (-
)&'
' ; %
A
3 JK
67 <5/
9
637 C 6'7 )+/..//+
# !
9 F 1 6 7 )/0)
9
637 F " 7 0)/0)<5+ *
9 # 67 )/0.
9
637 6* # )+/..//+ 9
#
9
1 67 ))/)
9
637 6%37 0)/0)<5+ *
#
9
1 63 7 .)/0)<5+
9 # 67 ))/+
9
637
8,8
" (- )
9 - ?
%
"
(%")
44 4+44 - %"
$
(
)
-
" (- )
?
=
#
?
&'
()
-'
-
1
%
"
*
() :
/
1
%
"
(%")
$
0 ;
A
#
9# #
.
*
!
B
() 7
-
( )
7'
/ " - -
32(3)
I )) 3
/./../.068 $)07 ;), 3
3 .+)/.././../.0 2 ).
% ! 2
2 7 3 2
!1 !
! 2 ! 2 G
1 3 !:
ii) 3 ! 2 12
2 1 3 !
!
:
7 3 3 ! 8
2!
"
2!
1 2!
2
3 2! 2 2!
:
iv) 3
0 3 ! )<=, 2 !%2
%3
22
2
:
v) 3 ! 2 2 12
! :
7 ' 2 2 2
232 1 2
)0
! '
!
! ' 2
! 2 ! ! ! + - !
-'
2 ! !3 2 ' "
' " 2!637 ' !2 2
! )= '
2
)+ ' 2 8 ! ! 3 2 1 !
12
2
@ )- J?
2
" 8
! '
2
. 2 "
2 3 22
! !3 8 " "? ;
38
3=
'
?
?
6
? 6
?
*
-
*
?
? "
.
-
?
?
)5
! #
!"#$%2 2 G ! @ !
+//4$
)///4$ " 23 J?
" "
! !
! !3
& #'''
"%(($)##)*%3 8 " $ "Scope of Judicial Review
215. The law with regard to scope of judicial review has been very well crystalized in the case of Tata Cellular (supra). In the said case, it has been held by this Court that
the duty of the court is to confine itself to the question of legality. Its concern should be whether a decision making authority exceeded its powers, committed an error of law, committed a breach of the rules of natural justice, reached a decision which no reasonable tribunal would have reached or abused its powers. The Court held that it is not for the court to determine whether a particular policy or particular decision taken in the fulfilment of that policy is fair. It is only concerned with the manner in which those decisions have been taken.
216. After referring to various pronouncements on the scope of judicial review, the Court has summed-up thus: "94. The principles deducible from the above are:
(1) The modern trend points to judicial restraint in administrative action.
(2) The court does not sit as a court of appeal but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made.
(3) The court does not have the expertise to correct the administrative decision. If a review of the administrative decision is permitted it will be substituting its own decision, without the necessary expertise which itself may be fallible.
(4) The terms of the invitation to tender cannot be open to judicial scrutiny because the invitation to tender is in the realm of contract. Normally speaking, the decision to accept the tender or award the contract is reached by process of negotiations through several tiers. More often than not, such decisions are made qualitatively by experts.
(5) The Government must have freedom of contract. In other words, a fair play in the joints is a necessary concomitant for an administrative body functioning in an administrative sphere or quasi administrative
sphere. However, the decision must not only be tested by the application of Wednesbury principle of reasonableness (including its other facts pointed out above) but must be free from arbitrariness not affected by bias or actuated by mala fides.
(6) Quashing decisions may impose heavy administrative burden on the administration and lead to increased and unbudgeted expenditure. Based on these principles we will examine the facts of this case since they commend to us as the correct principles." ), '
8 3 !'
! +
- 2
! -
0 )<=,
2 !3
2
! 3
!
2
! ''' ' 3 2
! ! ! 3
2 " ! ' 2 ! 2
!
! 3 2 2 !
! )< 3
)<=, 3 3 2 ! ! !
3 !
"
'
!
2' 8 2
!')<=, 2 '
2
' 8
!
! ! "
2
3 !1
2
3 ./ 3 2!
!
2 3
! 2
'! ! 2 1 ! # !
2 3
.) 3
G - *
' $ $ ! 3 3
@' 822 1
3
8 !12 !
3
!
3
3 ! 2
)= '3 )=
2
2
8 ! )= ' .. %
2 +
!2 - 2
!
! + !
!
-
' 2
.0 ' 2 ! "
+ $ & #'''
"
+ $ "
2
$ $ ! !
2 2
2E
8 .= '2 $
! !
2 "
3
!
.+
6 7 !
! . 1
" )//=./.= *
14 L 4; @
C67