International Journal of Law

International Journal of Law

Judicial review and government contracts: An appraisal

Abstract
The concept of judicial review and its extent in government contracts is not unknown to Indian Jurisprudence. It is no longer res
integra that source of judicial review lies in Articles 32, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with its charter flowing from
Article 13. It has been held by Dalveer Bhandari, J, who is presently a Judge of the International Court of Justice, in Mahmadhusen
Abdulrahim Kalota Shaikh v. Union of India, that judicial review forms part of the basic structure of the Constitution and that the
violation of judicial review is another way of saying that the separation of powers between the principal three organs of the State
have been violated. Overseeing the sphere of control of the other two organs of the State, the Court has power to afford protection
from executive and/or legislative encroachment. Where judicial review is put off the way, the Court shall still review the
constitutional validity of such an action. It would be incorrect to assume that judicial review has emerged of late. As early as in
1952, the then Chief Justice Patanjali Sastri for a Constitution Bench observed in State of Madras v. V G Row, that Indian
Constitution contains express provision for judicial review. His lordship opined that courts have been assigned the role of a
sentinel on the qui vive. In last six decades the Supreme Court has time and again reiterated that judicial review is a part of the
inviolable basic structure doctrine. It is trite that any provision of law which bars judicial review is unconstitutional for all
purposes. Amendments to the Constitution are subject to judicial review and hence, it becomes an important task to undertake a
study of the contours of judicial review particularly in the field of government contracts. An attempt has been made in this paper to
analyze judicial review in the context of government contracts dividing the themes for better appreciation of law.

Keywords: Indian jurisprudence, judicial, union of India

1. Introduction held by S H Kapadia, J (as his lordship then was) that the
Though the Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution is not an ephemeral legal document embodying a
Constitution and enact a new law; the legislature or the set of legal rules for the passing hour. It sets out principles for
executive, has no power to either interpret the Constitution, or an expanding future and is intended to endure for ages to
to determine the validity of an amendment to the provisions of come and consequently to be adapted to the various crisis of
the Constitution. The power to determine the validity of a human affairs. Therefore, a purposive rather than a strict
constitutional amendment exclusively rests with the higher literal approach to the interpretation should be adopted. A
judiciary. Every amendment and statute has to be tested on the Constitutional provision must be construed not in a narrow
touchstone of ‘basic structure’ as declared by the judiciary. and constricted sense but in a wide and liberal manner so as to
The power to judicially review the legislative actions can not anticipate and take account of changing conditions and
withdrawn or revoked. It won’t be wrong to assume that this purposes so that constitutional provision does not get
power is no less significant than the legislative power of fossilized but remains flexible enough to meet the newly
Parliament. It was ruled in Supreme Court Advocates-on- emerging problems and challenges.
Record-Association v. Union of India [4], by J S Khehar, J (as The concept of a basic structure giving coherence and
his lordship then was) that the importance of the power of durability to a Constitution has a certain intrinsic force. This
judicial review vested with the higher judiciary (to examine doctrine has essentially developed from the German
the validity of executive and legislative actions), bestowed Constitution. This development is the emergence of the
superiority to the judiciary over the other two pillars of constitutional principles in their own right. It is not based on
governance. This position, it was pointed out, was critical to literal wordings. The point which is important to be noted is
balance the power surrendered by the civil society, in favour that principles of federalism, secularism, reasonableness and
of the political and the executive sovereignty. socialism etc. are beyond the words of a particular provision.
The question which arose for consideration was the nature of They are systematic and structural principles underlying and
the standards of judicial review required to be applied in connecting various provisions of the Constitution. They give
judging the validity of the constitutional amendments in the coherence to the Constitution. They make the Constitution an
context of the doctrine of basic structure in M Nagaraj v. organic whole. They are part of constitutional law even if they
Union of India [5]. Speaking for a Constitution bench it was are not expressly stated in the form of rules [6]. For a

108
International Journal of Law

constitutional principle to qualify as an essential feature, it Courts under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution and upon
must be established that the said principle is a part of the the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution is a
constitutional law binding on the legislature. Only thereafter, part of the inviolable basic structure of our Constitution which
the second step is to be taken, namely, whether the principle is cannot be upset even by a constitutional amendment. In I R
so fundamental as to bind even the amending power of the Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu [13], a Bench of nine Judges
Parliament, i.e. to form a part of the basic structure. The basic again held that power of judicial review is a part of the basic
structure concept accordingly limits the amending power of structure of the Constitution while clarifying the principles
the Parliament. laid down in Kesavananda [14].
In order to qualify as an essential feature, a principle is to be Recently, in Bharati Reddy v. State of Karnataka [15], it was
first established as part of the constitutional law and as such observed that S Abdul Nazeer, J for himself and J
binding on the legislature. Only then, it can be examined Chelameswar, J that it is clear that power of judicial review
whether it is so fundamental as to bind even the amending under Articles 32/226/227 of the Constitution is an essential
power of the Parliament i.e. to form part of the basic structure feature of the Constitution which can neither be tinkered with
of the Constitution. This is the standard of judicial review of nor eroded. Even the Constitution cannot be amended to erode
constitutional amendments in the context of the doctrine of the basic structure of the Constitution. The views of Abdul
basic structure. Judicial review of legislation enacted by the Nazeer, J was reiterated by a full bench of Supreme Court
Parliament within limited powers under the controlled consisting of Dipak Misra, C J, A M Khanwilkar and Dr. D Y
constitution which we have, has been a feature of our law and Chandrachud, JJ again in Bharati Reddy v. The State of
this is on the ground that any law passed by a legislature with Karnataka [16].
limited powers is ultra vires if the limits are transgressed. The
framers conferred on the Supreme Court the power to issue 3. Judicial Review of Government Contracts
writs for the speedy enforcement of those rights and made the Few principles, then, laid down in the last three decades to put
right to approach the Supreme Court for such enforcement the matter in right perspective will be order in consonance
itself a fundamental right [7]. with the title of this paper. The question which fell for
Dealing with a special provision for Andhra Pradesh consideration in Star Enterprises v. City and Industrial
constitutionally mandated, Chief Justice P N Bhagwati in P. Development Corporation of Maharashtra before a full bench
Sambamurthy v. State of A P [8], for a Constitution Bench, was that when highest offers are rejected by the State, whether
recorded that it is a basic principle of the rule of law that the reasons sufficient to indicate the stand of appropriate authority
exercise of power by the executive or any other authority must should be made available and should be communicated to
not only be conditioned by the Constitution but must also be concerned parties. Answering the question in affirmative it
in accordance with law and the power of judicial review is was held by Ranganath Misra, J (as his lordship then was) that
conferred by the Constitution with view to ensuring that the in recent times, judicial review of administrative action has
law is observed and there is compliance with the requirement become expansive and is becoming wider day by day. The
of law on the part of the executive and other authorities. It is traditional limitations have been vanishing and the sphere of
through the power of judicial review conferred on an judicial scrutiny is being expanded. State activity too is
independent institutional authority such as the High Court that becoming fast pervasive. As the State has descended into the
the rule of law is maintained and every organ of the State is commercial field and giant public sector undertakings have
kept within the limits- of the law. Now if the exercise of the grown up, the stake of the public exchequer is also large
power of judicial review can be set at naught by the State justifying larger social audit, judicial control and review by
Government by overriding the decision given against it, it opening of the public gaze; these necessitate recording of
would sound, the death-knell of the rule of law. The rule of reasons for executive actions including cases of rejection of
law would cease to have any meaning, because then it would highest offers. That very often involves long stakes and
be open to the State Government to defy the law and yet get availability of reasons for action on the record assures
away with it [9]. credibility to the action; disciplines public conduct and
improves the culture of accountability. Looking for reasons in
2. Judicial Review: Basic Structure Doctrine support of such action provides an opportunity for an
In the Fundamental Rights Case [10], the then Full Court by a objective review in appropriate cases both by the
wafer-thin majority declared that Article 368 of the administrative superior and by the judicial process [17].
Constitution does not enable the Parliament to alter the basic The question which arose for consideration in Sterling
structure or framework of the Constitution. The basic structure Computers Limited M & N Publications Limited [18] was the
of the Constitution could not be altered by any constitutional extent to which governmental contracts could be reviewed. It
amendment and it was held unambiguously that one of the was held by N.P. Singh, J that while exercising the power of
basic features in our constitutional scheme is the presence of judicial review, in respect of contracts entered into on behalf
judicial review. This view was affirmed/reiterated/followed by of the State, the Court is concerned primarily as to whether
a Constitution Bench in Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India there has been any infirmity in the ‘decision making process’.
[11]
unanimously while putting a stop to Parliament’s power to In this connection reference may be made to the case of Chief
nullify the principles laid down in the preceding case. In L Constable of the North Wales Police v. Evans [19], where it was
Chandra Kumar v. Union of India [12], a seven Judge Bench of observed that the purpose of judicial review is to ensure that
Supreme Court held that jurisdiction conferred upon the High the individual receives fair treatment, and not to ensure that

109
International Journal of Law

the authority, after according fair treatment, reaches on a Construction [25]. G B Pattanaik, J (as his lordship then was)
matter which it is authorized or enjoined by law to decide for held that though the principle of judicial review cannot be
itself a conclusion which is correct in the eyes of the court. By denied so far as exercise of contractual powers of government
way of judicial review the Court cannot examine the details of bodies are concerned, but it is intended to prevent arbitrariness
the terms of the contract which have been entered into by the or favoritism and it is exercised in the larger public interest or
public bodies or the State. Courts have inherent limitations on if it is brought to the notice of the Court that in the matter of
the scope of any such enquiry. But at the same time the Courts award of a contract power has been exercised for any
can certainly examine whether "decision making process" was collateral purpose [26].
reasonable, rational, not arbitrary and violative of Article 14 The parameter for the exercise of judicial review in case of
of the Constitution. It was further held that while exercising government contracts was considered in Raunaq International
the power of judicial review in connection with contractual Limited v. I.V.R. Construction Ltd [27]. It was held by Sujatha
obligations, Courts should be conscious of the urgency of the V Manohar, J that judicial review would be permissible only
disposal of such matters, otherwise the power which is to be on the established grounds for such review including mala
exercised in the interest of the public and for public good in fides, arbitrariness or unreasonableness. The principles of
some case become counter-productive by causing injury to the judicial review are no different in cases of governmental
public in general [20]. contracts. However, grant of stay or injunction in such cases
The applicability of the doctrine of legitimate expectation fell may or may not result in prejudice to the public revenue,
for consideration in Union of India v. Hindustan Development depending on the facts of the case. At times granting of a
Corporation [21]. It was held by K. Jayachandra Reddy, J that licence or permission may cause public harm e.g. in the case
if a denial of legitimate expectation in a given case amounts to of damage to the ecology. Interim orders will have to be made
denial of right guaranteed or is arbitrary, discriminatory, in such cases on a consideration of all relevant factors,
unfair or biased, gross abuse of power of violation of providing for restitution where required in public interest [28].
principles of natural justice, the same can be questioned on the Government contract could be set aside if it is contrary to
well-known grounds attracting Article 14 but a claim based on public policy was the principle laid down in M.I. Builders Pvt.
mere legitimate expectation without anything more cannot Ltd. v. Radhey Shyam Sahu [29]. D P Wadhwa, J went on to
ipso facto give a right to invoke these principles. It could be hold that every decision of every authority except the judicial
one of the grounds for consideration but the court must lift the decision is amenable to judicial review and reviewability of
veil and see whether the decision is violative of these such a decision cannot now be questioned. However, a judicial
principles warning interference. It depends very much on the review is permissible if the impugned action is against law or
facts and the recognised general principles of administrative in violation of the prescribed procedure or is unreasonable,
law applicable to such facts and the concept of legitimate irrational or malafide [30].
expectation which is the latest recruit to a long list of concepts In commercial transaction of complex nature authority
fashioned by the courts for the review of administrative awarding contract is not even bound to see the highest offer
action, must be restricted to the general legal limitations was the law laid down in Air India Ltd. v. Cochin
applicable and binding the manner of the future exercise of International Airport Ltd [31]. In the words of G T Nanavati, J
administrative power in a particular case. It follows that the the award of a contract, whether it is by a private party or by a
concept of legitimate expectation is ‘not the key which public body or the State, is essentially a commercial
unlocks the treasury of natural justice and it ought not to transaction. In arriving at a commercial decision,
unlock the gates which shuts the court out of review on the considerations which are paramount are commercial
merits’, particularly when the element of speculation and considerations. The State can choose its own method to arrive
uncertainty is inherent in that very concept [22]. at a decision. It can fix its own terms of invitation to tender
In the matter of grant of tender the State cannot act as a and that is not open to judicial scrutiny. It can enter into
private person having regard to Article 14 of the Constitution negotiations before finally deciding to accept one of the offers
of India was the finding recorded in New Horizons Ltd. v. made to it. Price need not always be the sole criterion for
Union of India [23]. It was categorically opined that departing awarding a contract. It is free to grant any relaxation, for bona
from the narrow legalistic view the Courts have taken note of fide reasons, if the tender conditions permit such a relaxation.
the realities of the situation which, by no stretch of It may not accept the offer even though it happens to be the
imagination, would mean that the Court would substitute itself highest or the lowest. But the State, its corporations,
in the place of a statutory authority. The Court in a case of this instrumentalities and agencies are bound to adhere to the
nature must exercise judicial restraint. It may be one thing to norms, standards and procedure laid down by them and cannot
say that having regard to the public interest, the Court may depart from them arbitrarily. Though that decision is not
itself invite bids so as to verify the justification of accepting a amenable to judicial review, the court can examine the
palpably lower bid as was done in Ram and Shyam Company decision-making process and interfere if it is found vitiated by
v. State of Haryana [24], but it is another thing to say the Court mala fides, unreasonableness and arbitrariness [32]. The
would under all circumstances not allow a play in the joints in principle was reiterated in Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v.
favor of the employer. Commr, Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation [33], wherein it
The question of limitation upon the power of judicial review was held that the terms and conditions in the tender are
of government contract fell for consideration in Asia prescribed by the Government bearing in mind the nature of
Foundation & Construction Ltd. v. Trafalgar House contract and in such matters the authority calling for the

110
International Journal of Law

tender is the best judge to prescribe the terms and conditions Public interest could be one of the factors to exercise power of
of the tender. It is not for the courts to say whether the judicial review in cases of government contracts is the
conditions prescribed in the tender under consideration were statement of law in Binny Ltd. v. V. Sadasivan [39]. It was
better than the ones prescribed in the earlier tender invitations observed by K G Balakrishnan, J. (as he then was) that a
[34]
. contract would not become statutory simply because it is for
Whether writ is the remedy for enforcing contractual construction of a public utility and it has been awarded by a
obligations was the issue in State of Bihar v. Jain Plastics and statutory body. Nevertheless it may be noticed that the
Chemicals Ltd [35]. It was held M B Shah, J that writ petition Government or Government authorities at all levels is
under Article 226 is not the proper proceeding for adjudicating increasingly employing contractual techniques to achieve its
such disputes. It was further held that it is settled law that regulatory aims. It cannot be said that the exercise of those
when an alternative and equally efficacious remedy is open to powers is free from the zone of judicial review and that there
the litigant, he should be required to pursue that remedy and would be no limits to the exercise of such powers, but in
not invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. Equally, the normal circumstances, judicial review principles cannot be
existence of alternative remedy does not affect the jurisdiction used to enforce the contractual obligations. When that
of the Court of issue writ, but ordinarily that would be a good contractual power is being used for public purpose, it is
ground in refusing to exercise the discretion under Article certainly amenable to judicial review. The power must be used
226. It is true that many matters could be decided after for lawful purposes and not unreasonably. In a case where a
referring to the contentions raised in the affidavits and public law element is involved, judicial review may be
counter-affidavits, but that would hardly be ground for permissible [40].
exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the In matters of judicial review the basic test is to see whether
Constitution in case of alleged breach of contract. Whether the there is any infirmity in the decision-making process and not
alleged non-supply of road permits by the appellants would in the decision itself as per Reliance Airport Developers (P)
justify breach of contract by the respondent would depend Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India [41]. This means that the
upon facts and evidence and is not required to be decided or decision-maker must understand correctly the law that
dealt with in a writ petition. Such seriously disputed questions regulates his decision-making power and he must give effect
or rival claims of the parties with regard to breach of contract to it otherwise it may result in illegality. The principle of
are to be investigated and determined on the basis of evidence ‘judicial review’ cannot be denied even in contractual matters
which may be led by the parties in a properly instituted civil or matters in which the Government exercises its contractual
suit rather than by a Court exercising prerogative of issuing powers, but judicial review is intended to prevent arbitrariness
writs [36]. and it must be exercised in larger public interest. Expression
Governmental contracts have to comply with the doctrine of of different views and opinions in exercise of contractual
reasonableness as per the decision rendered in Union of India powers may be there, however, such difference of opinion
v. International Trading Co [37]. It was held by Dr Arijit must be based on specified norms. Those norms may be legal
Pasayat J that Article 14 of the Constitution applies also to norms or accounting norms. As long as the norms are clear
matters of governmental policy and if the policy or any action and properly understood by the decision-maker and the
of the Government, even in contractual matters, fails to satisfy bidders and other stakeholders, uncertainty and thereby breach
the test of reasonableness, it would be unconstitutional. While of rule of law will not arise. The grounds upon which
the discretion to change the policy in exercise of the executive administrative action is subjected to control by judicial review
power, when not trammeled by any statute or rule is wide are classifiable broadly under three heads, namely, illegality,
enough, what is imperative and implicit in terms of Article 14 irrationality and procedural impropriety. In the said judgment
is that a change in policy must be made fairly and should not it has been held that all errors of law are jurisdictional errors.
give impression that it was so done arbitrarily or by any One of the important principles laid down in the aforesaid
ulterior criteria. The wide sweep of Article 14 and the judgment is that whenever a norm/benchmark is prescribed in
requirement of every State action qualifying for its validity on the tender process in order to provide certainty that
this touchstone irrespective of the field of activity of the State norm/standard should be clear. As stated above ‘certainty’ is
is an accepted tenet. The basic requirement of Article 14 is an important aspect of rule of law.
fairness in action by the state, and non-arbitrariness in essence In Noble Resources Ltd. v. State of Orissa [42], the question
and substance is the heart beat of fair play. Actions are which arose for consideration was whether governmental
amenable, in the panorama of judicial review only to the contracts are within the realm of judicial review and if yes
extent that the State must act validly for discernible reasons, then to what extent? It was held by S B Sinha, J that it is trite
not whimsically for any ulterior purpose. The meaning and that if an action on the part of the State is violative the
true import and concept of arbitrariness is more easily equality clause contained in Article 14 of the Constitution of
visualized than precisely defined. A question whether the India, a writ petition would be maintainable even in the
impugned action is arbitrary or not is to be ultimately contractual field. A distinction indisputably must be made
answered on the facts and circumstances of a given case. A between a matter which is at the threshold of a contract and a
basic and obvious test to apply in such cases is to see whether breach of contract; whereas in the former the court's scrutiny
there is any discernible principle emerging from the impugned would be more intrusive, in the latter the court may not
action and if so, does it really satisfy the test of reasonableness ordinarily exercise its discretionary jurisdiction of judicial
[38]
. review, unless it is found to be violative of Article 14 of the

111
International Journal of Law

Constitution. While exercising contractual powers also, the In Maa Binda Express Carrier v. Northeast Frontier Railway
[55]
government bodies may be subjected to judicial review in , the question which arose for consideration was that
order to prevent arbitrariness or favouritism on its part. whether authority inviting tenders can enter into negotiations
Indisputably, inherent limitations exist, but it would not be or grant relaxation for bona fide and cogent reasons if such
correct to opine that under no circumstances a writ will lie relaxation is permissible under the terms governing the tender
only because it involves a contractual matter. Contractual process? While answering the question in affirmative it was
matters are, thus, not beyond the realm of judicial review. Its held by T S Thakur, J. (as he then was) that the power
application may, however, be limited [43]. exercised by the Government and its instrumentalities in
Again Sinha, J read some limitations into judicial review in regard to allotment of contract is subject to judicial review at
regard to governmental contracts in Ramachandra Murarilal the instance of an aggrieved party, submission of a tender in
Bhattad v. State of Maharashtra [44]. It was observed that response to a notice inviting such tenders is no more than
while exercising its jurisdiction of judicial review, the Court is making an offer which the State or its agencies are under no
required to decide the cases before it, keeping the well-known obligation to accept. The bidders participating in the tender
principles therefore in mind and having regard to the fact process cannot, therefore, insist that their tenders should be
situation obtaining therein. No hard and fast rule can be laid accepted simply because a given tender is the highest or
down therefore. Noticing some of the areas where judicial lowest depending upon whether the contract is for sale of
review would be permissible, the Court opined that ordinarily, public property or for execution of works on behalf of the
superior courts would not enforce specific performance of Government. All that participating bidders are entitled to is a
contract where damages would be adequate remedy. It was fair, equal and non-discriminatory treatment in the matter of
also held that conduct of the parties would also play an evaluation of their tenders. It is also fairly well-settled that
important role. The expansive role of Courts in exercising its award of a contract is essentially a commercial transaction
power of judicial review is not in dispute. But each case must which must be determined on the basis of consideration that
be decided on its own facts [45]. are relevant to such commercial decision. This implies that
In Puravankara Projects Ltd. v. Hotel Venus International [46], terms subject to which tenders are invited are not open to the
reliance was placed upon Directorate of Education v. judicial scrutiny unless it is found that the same have been
Educomp Datamatics Ltd [47], and Tata Cellular v. Union of tailor made to benefit any particular tenderer or class of
India [48], to conclude that the courts can scrutinize the award tenderers [56]. In Haryana Urban Development Authority v.
of the contracts by the Government or its agencies in exercise Orchid Infrastructure Developers P. Ltd [57], it was held by
of their powers of judicial review to prevent arbitrariness or Arun Mishra, J that it is a settled law that the highest bidder
favouritism. However, there are inherent limitations in the has no vested right to have the auction concluded in his
exercise of the power of judicial review in such matters. The favour. The Government or its authority can validly retain
court does not sit as a court of appeal but merely reviews the power to accept or reject the highest bid in the interest of
manner in which the decision was made. As held in Jagdish public revenue [58].
Mandal v. State of Orissa [49], before interfering in tender or
contractual matters in exercise of power of judicial review, the 4. Conclusion
court should pose to itself the following questions: i) whether From its initial hesitation to judicially review government
the process adopted or decision made by the authority is mala contracts, Supreme Court in the last three decades has laid
fide or intended to favor someone and ii) whether public down several principles governing them so much so that it
interest is affected [50]. could now be fairly stated that is now well-settled by a long
In Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board v. Sadhu Ram line of decisions that judicial review is now available at every
[51]
, the issue which arose was whether the right to refuse the stage beginning with the process of allotment of contracts by
lowest or any tender is available to the Government? While an instrumentality of the State. In several decisions, it has
answering the issue in affirmative it was observed by Tarun been laid down that exercise of contractual powers by the
Chatterjee, J that Article 14 of the Constitution must be kept Government and Government instrumentalities in order to
in mind while accepting or refusing a tender. There can be no prevent arbitrariness or favoritism could be checked so that
question of infringement of Article 14 if the Government tries the command of the equality clause is not breached. In certain
to get the best quotation and also to cancel the best quotation situations, courts have been forced to act keeping the public
if it was of the view that the best quotation also was not to the interest. The mandate of law, in brief, is that (i) the
satisfaction of the Government to get a better market price of Government is free to enter into any contract with citizens but
the plots in question [52]. Suffice it to say that in the matter of the court may interfere where it acts arbitrarily or contrary to
award of contracts the Government and its agencies have to public interest, (ii) the Government cannot arbitrarily choose
act reasonably and fairly at all points of time. To that extent any person it likes for entering into such a relationship or to
the tenderer has an enforceable right in the Court who is discriminate between persons similarly situate, (iii) it is open
competent to examine whether the aggrieved party has been to the Government to reject even the highest bid at a tender
treated unfairly or discriminated against to the detriment of where such rejection is not arbitrary or unreasonable or such
public interest [53]. It is well settled principle that in the matters rejection is in public interest for valid and good reasons.
of Government contract, the scope for judicial review is very Despite the fact that Supreme Court has laid down various
limited and that the Court cannot substitute its own decision principles in the field of judicial review of government
for that of the government [54]. contracts for guidance and application by various high courts,

112
International Journal of Law

matters do reach the Apex Court where the views of the high 47. (2007)10 SCC 33.
courts are reversed being not in line with the law of the land. 48. (2004) 4 SCC 19.
As more and more areas are opening up for citizens to do 49. (1994) 6 SCC 651.
business with the government, it is expected that the Supreme 50. (2007) 14 SCC 517.
Court might have to invent new principles keeping in mind 51. Id. at 519.
various factors, as for instance, particular facts of the case, 52. (2008) 16 SCC 405.
needs and demands of time, interest of justice, equity, etc. One 53. Id. at 414.
thing, of course, is certain in that having travelled this far, 54. Meerut Development Authority v. Association of
Supreme Court cannot refuse to interfere in the field of Management Studies, (2009) 6 SCC 171.
government contracts using its constitutional power of judicial 55. Ravi Development vs. Shree Krishna Prathisthan, (2009)
review. 7 SCC 462.
56. (2014) 3 SCC 760.
5. References 57. Id. at 764.
1. S S Bola v. B D Sardana, AIR 1997 SC 3127. 58. (2017) 4 SCC 243.
2. 2008 (13) SCALE 398. 59. Id. at 246.
3. AIR 1952 SC 196.
4. (2016) 5 SCC 1.
5. (2006) 8 SCC 212.
6. Id. at 243.
7. Id. at 232.
8. (1987) 1 SCC 362.
9. Id. at 369.
10. His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v.
State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225.
11. (1980) 3 SCC 625.
12. (1997) 3 SCC 261
13. (2007) 2 SCC 1.
14. Supra, note 10.
15. 2017 (9) SCALE 156.
16. 2018 (3) SCALE 703 at 709.
17. (1990) 3 SCC 280.
18. Id. at 282.
19. (1993) 1 SCC 445.
20. (1982) 3 All ER 141.
21. Supra, note 19 at 451.
22. (1993) 3 SCC 499.
23. Id. at 506.
24. (1995) 1 SCC 478.
25. (1985) 3 SCC 267.
26. (1997) 1 SCC 738.
27. Id. at 740.
28. (1999) 1 SCC 492.
29. Id. at 497.
30. (1999) 6 SCC 464.
31. Id. at 523.
32. (2000) 2 SCC 617.
33. Id. at 623.
34. (2000) 5 SCC 287.
35. Id. at 288.
36. (2002) 1 SCC 216.
37. Id. at 217.
38. (2003) 5 SCC 437.
39. Id. at 445.
40. (2005) 6 SCC 657.
41. Id. at 659.
42. (2006) 10 SCC 1.
43. (2006) 10 SCC 236.
44. Id. at 246.
45. (2007) 2 SCC 588.
46. Id. at 607.

113