G.P.Mathur, J. - (1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed praying that a writ of mandamus be issued directing the respondents No. 1 to 4 to issue a work order in its favour and further to cancel and set aside any work order, if issued, in favour of respondents No. 5 and 6.
(2.) According to the case of the petitioner respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 floated global tender to bid for supply of rock phosphates. The petitioner, claims that it fulfilled all the requirements laid down by respondent No. 3 and in the tender the petitioner quoted lowest rate of Section 52.57 white the rates quoted by respondent No. 5 and 6 were higher. However inspite of the fact that the rate offered by the petitioner was lowest, no work order has been issued in its favour.
(3.) It is well settled that award of a contract by the State or a public authority can be judicially reviewed but a Court would interfere only if it comes to the conclusion that the award of contract is vitiated by arbitrariness, unfairness, illegality or irrationality. The scope of interference in such matters has been considered in detail in Tate Cellular versus Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 561 (AIR 1996 SC 11) and it has been held as follows : "The duty of the court is to confine itself to the question of legality. Its concern should be : 1. Whether a decision making authority exceeded its powers, 2. Committed an error of law. 3. Committed a breach of the rules of natural justice, 4. reached a decision which no reasonable tribunal would have reached or, 5. abused its powers. Therefore, 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. The extent of the duty to act fairly will vary from case to case. Shortly put, the grounds upon which an administrative action is subject to control by judicial review can be classified as under : (i) Illegality: This means the decision-maker must understand correctly the law that regulates his decision-making power and must give effect to it; (ii) Irrationality, namely, wednesbury unreasonableness. (iii) Procedural impropriety. The above are only the broad grounds but it does not rule out addition oi' further grounds in course of time.";