Summary
The Supreme Court restored a petrol pump retail outlet dealership awarded by BPCL to the appellant, which the High Court had cancelled for non-disclosure of a co-owner and a pending civil suit over the offered land. Since BPCL, after scrutiny, was satisfied that the dispute had been settled and co-owner consents obtained, and no favouritism, mala fide or perversity was shown, the High Court should have deferred to the tender-issuing authority's understanding of its own documents.
Issues
- Whether the High Court was justified, in writ jurisdiction, in cancelling the dealership on the ground that the appellant had not disclosed co-ownership of the offered land and a pending civil suit, contrary to the false-information clause of the selection brochure.
- What is the scope of judicial review over a public sector undertaking's interpretation and application of its own tender or selection documents.
Held
- BPCL's stand before the High Court and the Supreme Court was that the appellant had furnished all land documents, including co-owner consents, which were scrutinised and verified; the dispute between the co-owners had been settled, the suit withdrawn and a lease executed before issue of the letter of intent. No outright favour to the appellant was shown, and once the corporation was satisfied with the procedure, there was no good reason for the High Court to disturb a dealership granted in 2020 at the writ petitioner's instance. (¶¶ 19, 20, 21, 22, 23)
- The author of tender documents is best placed to understand and interpret them, and constitutional courts must defer to its understanding unless there is mala fide or perversity in the understanding or application of the tender conditions; an interpretation the court might not itself adopt is not a reason to interfere. (¶ 24)
- Judicial review is called for where the approach is arbitrary or mala fide or the procedure is meant to favour someone; where a decision is in consonance with the tender document or serves its purpose, courts should exercise restraint, avoid technical evaluation, and allow free play in the joints. (¶ 25)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment cancelling the dealership set aside; proforma Respondent No. 1 deleted from the array of parties at the appellant's risk; pending applications disposed of.