What is doctrine of judicial review?

 In short, Judicial review is directed not against the decision, but is confined to the examination of the decision making process. When the issue raised in judicial review is whether a decision is vitiated by taking into account irrelevant, or neglecting to take into account of relevant factors or is so manifestly unreasonable that no reasonable authority entrusted with the power in question could reasonably have made such decision. The judicial services of the decision making process includes examination, as a matter of law, of the relevance of the factors as held by the Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Maharani Rajlaxmi Kumari Devi A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 1010.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Appeal Nos. 364 and 441 of 2005 in Writ Petition No. 1097 of 2004

Decided On: 11.06.2007

Hindoostan Spg. and Wvg. Mills Ltd. Vs.  Hindustan Crown Mills Siddhivinayak Kamgar Karmachari Sangharsha Sanghatana 

Print Page

Leading judgment on government contract and tender proces

In Reliance Airport Developers (P) Ltd. vs. Airports
Authority of India & Ors., (2006) 10 SCC 1, this Court held
that while judicial review cannot be denied in contractual
matters or matters in which the Government exercises its
contractual powers, such review is intended to prevent
arbitrariness and must be exercised in larger public interest.

17) In Jagdish Mandal vs. State of Orissa and Others,
(2007) 14 SCC 517, the following conclusion is relevant:
“22. Judicial review of administrative action is intended to
prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, bias
and mala fides. Its purpose is to check whether choice or
decision is made “lawfully” and not to check whether choice
or decision is “sound”. When the power of judicial review is
invoked in matters relating to tenders or award of contracts,
certain special features should be borne in mind. A contract
is a commercial transaction. Evaluating tenders and
awarding contracts are essentially commercial functions.
Principles of equity and natural justice stay at a distance. If
the decision relating to award of contract is bona fide and is
in public interest, courts will not, in exercise of power of
judicial review, interfere even if a procedural aberration or
error in assessment or prejudice to a tenderer, is made out.
The power of judicial review will not be permitted to be
invoked to protect private interest at the cost of public
interest, or to decide contractual disputes. The tenderer or
contractor with a grievance can always seek damages in a
civil court. Attempts by unsuccessful tenderers with
imaginary grievances, wounded pride and business rivalry,
to make mountains out of molehills of some
technical/procedural violation or some prejudice to self, and
persuade courts to interfere by exercising power of judicial
review, should be resisted. Such interferences, either interim
or final, may hold up public works for years, or delay relief
and succour to thousands and millions and may increase
the project cost manifold. Therefore, a court before
interfering in tender or contractual matters in exercise of
power of judicial review, should pose to itself the following
questions:
(i) Whether the process adopted or decision made by the
authority is mala fide or intended to favour someone;
OR
Whether the process adopted or decision made is so
arbitrary and irrational that the court can say: “the decision
is such that no responsible authority acting reasonably and
in accordance with relevant law could have reached”;

(ii) Whether public interest is affected.
If the answers are in the negative, there should be no
interference under Article 226. Cases involving blacklisting
or imposition of penal consequences on a
tenderer/contractor or distribution of State largesse
(allotment of sites/shops, grant of licences, dealerships and
franchises) stand on a different footing as they may require a
higher degree of fairness in action.”
18) The same principles have been reiterated in a recent
decision of this Court in Tejas Constructions &
Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. Municipal Council, Sendhwa &
Anr., (2012) 6 SCC 464.
19) From the above decisions, the following principles
emerge:
(a) the basic requirement of Article 14 is fairness in action
by the State, and non-arbitrariness in essence and substance
is the heartbeat of fair play. These actions are amenable to
the judicial review only to the extent that the State must act
validly for a discernible reason and not whimsically for any
ulterior purpose. If the State acts within the bounds of
reasonableness, it would be legitimate to take into
consideration the national priorities;
(b) fixation of a value of the tender is entirely within the
purview of the executive and courts hardly have any role to

play in this process except for striking down such action of the
executive as is proved to be arbitrary or unreasonable. If the
Government acts in conformity with certain healthy standards
and norms such as awarding of contracts by inviting tenders,
in those circumstances, the interference by Courts is very
limited;
(c) In the matter of formulating conditions of a tender
document and awarding a contract, greater latitude is
required to be conceded to the State authorities unless the
action of tendering authority is found to be malicious and a
misuse of its statutory powers, interference by Courts is not
warranted;
(d) Certain preconditions or qualifications for tenders have
to be laid down to ensure that the contractor has the capacity
and the resources to successfully execute the work; and
(e) If the State or its instrumentalities act reasonably, fairly
and in public interest in awarding contract, here again,
interference by Court is very restrictive since no person can
claim fundamental right to carry on business with the
Government.

20) Therefore, a Court before interfering in tender or
contractual matters, in exercise of power of judicial review,
should pose to itself the following questions:
(i) Whether the process adopted or decision made by the
authority is mala fide or intended to favour someone; or
whether the process adopted or decision made is so arbitrary
and irrational that the court can say: “the decision is such
that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in
accordance with relevant law could have reached”; and (ii)
Whether the public interest is affected. If the answers to the
above questions are in negative, then there should be no
interference under Article 226.

REPORTABLE

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5898 OF 2012
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 25802 of 2008
M/s Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. .... Appellant (s)
Versus
The State of Karnataka & Ors. .... Respondent(s)
 Dated:AUGUST 17, 2012.

 P. Sathasivam, J.

Print Page

Whether writ petition is maintainable in high court against administrative decision of information commissioner under RTI?

Mr. Deb submits that in view of the bar contained in Section 23, no Court including the High Court can entertain any proceedings and writ petitions are also proceedings and therefore, no proceedings lie before the High Court against any order of the State Information Commission. The Second limb of his argument is that even if the writ jurisdiction of the High Court is not ousted, the same can only be exercised only when there is complete lack of jurisdiction in the State Information Commissioner and merely because the jurisdiction has been exercised rightly or wrongly is not a ground to interfere in the order of the State Information Commissioner. These arguments have been raised only for the purpose of being rejected. There is no merit whatsoever in the arguments.

As far as the first argument is concerned, it is against the whole concept of the Constitution of India where the rule of law is granted primacy. The right of judicial review is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution and the decision of any authority is subject to judicial review under Article 226 or under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The law in this regard is absolutely clear.

A Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in L. Chandra Kumar V. Union of India, MANU/SC/0261/1997 : (1997) 3 SCC 261 held as follows:-

"78. ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ...... ... We, therefore, hold that the power of judicial review over legislative action vested in the High Courts under Article 226 and in this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution is an integral and essential feature of the Constitution, constituting part of its basic structure. Ordinarily, therefore, the power of High Courts and the Supreme Court to test the constitutional validity of legislations can never be ousted or excluded.
79. We also hold that the power vested in the High Courts to exercise judicial superintendence over the decisions of all courts and tribunals within their respective jurisdictions is also part of the basic structure of the Constitution. This is because a situation where the High Courts are divested of all other judicial functions apart from that of constitutional interpretation, is equally to be avoided."

One of the cornerstones of our Constitution scheme is that judicial review is part and parcel of the basic structure of the Constitution. Every decision which affects the rights of any party is subject to judicial review. Policy matters may be beyond the scope of judicial review but when any administrative decision affects the rights of the parties then that decision can be challenged though the grounds of challenge may be limited. As far as judicial or quasi judicial authorities are concerned, their judgments and orders are definitely amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, we have no hesitation in rejecting the first submission of Mr. Deb that this Court has no jurisdiction in the matter.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AT AGARTALA

WP(C) 231 of 2010

Decided On: 12.08.2015

Appellants: Dayashis Chakma
Vs.
Respondent: The State Chief Information Commissioner and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:Deepak Gupta, C.J. and S.C. Das, J.

Citation;AIR 2016(NOC)255 Tripura

Print Page

Judicial review Of Administrative Decision

Directorate Of Film Festivals & ... vs Gaurav Ashwin Jain & Ors on 11 April, 2007

Author: R V Raveendran

Bench: T Chatterjee, R V Raveendran

CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 1892 of 2007
PETITIONER:
Directorate of Film Festivals & Ors
RESPONDENT:
Gaurav Ashwin Jain & Ors
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/04/2007
BENCH:
Tarun Chatterjee & R V Raveendran
The scope of judicial review of governmental policy is now well defined. Courts do not and cannot act as Appellate Authorities examining the correctness, suitability and appropriateness of a policy. Nor are courts Advisors to the executive on matters of policy which the executive is entitled to formulate. The scope of judicial review when examining a policy of the government is to check whether it violates the fundamental rights of the citizens or is opposed to the provisions of the Constitution, or opposed to any statutory provision or manifestly arbitrary. Courts cannot interfere with policy either on the ground that it is erroneous or on the ground that a better, fairer or wiser alternative is available. Legality of the policy, and not the wisdom or soundness of the policy, is the subject of judicial review [vide : Asif Hameed v. State of J&K - 1989 Supp (2) SCC 364; Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd., v. Union of India - 1990 (3) SCC 223; Khoday Distilleries v. State of Karnataka - 1996 (10) SCC 304, Balco Employees Union v. Union of India - 2002 (2) SCC 333), State of Orissa vs. Gopinath Dash - 2005 (13) SCC 495 and Akhil Bharat Goseva Sangh vs. State of Andhra Pradesh - 2006 (4) SCC 162].

Print Page

Judicial review Of Administrative Decision.

Union of India v. J.D. Suryavanshi , C.A. No. 7658 of 2011; Decided on 5-9-2011 (SC)

Railway administration is a specialized field. It has to cater to the needs of the entire country. It is for the Railway administration to decide where, how and when trains or coaches should be added or the timings should be changed. The High Courts cannot decide by giving directions to the Railways to provide additional trains, additional coaches and change timings wherever they feel that there is a shortage of trains or need for better timings. The Supreme Court has repeatedly warned that courts should resist the temptation to unsurp the power of the Executive by entering into arenas which are exclusively within the domain of the Executive. How many coaches should be attached, what types of coaches are to be attached, on what lines what trains should run, what should be their timings and frequency, are all matters to be decided by the Railway administration using technical outputs, depending upon financial, administrative, social and other considerations.

Print Page