Important Judgment Reported Today on Judicial Review Amaresh Patel LANDMARK JUDGMENT Tue, Sep 17, 2019, at ,10:27 PM Title of the Case – Interference by Courts without Procedural Impropriety is not Proper Name of the case – Municipal Council Neemuch vs. Mahadeo Real Estate & Ors., C.A. Nos. 7319-7320 of 2019 (@SLP (C) Nos. 172-173) (Supreme Court) Date of Judgment – 17th Sept, 2019 Judges: Justice Arun Mishra, Justice M.R. Shah and Justice B.R. Gavai Subject and sections involved – Judicial Review and Section 109 of M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956. Issue: Whether decision of Revenue Commissioner of Ujjain in a matter of issuing tenders is improper? Whether the court can interfere through judicial review with the decision of administrative body? Fact of the Case: The Municipal Council of Neemuch, Madhya Pradesh had invited tenders for allotment of land on lease, for a period of 30 years. Mahadeo Real Estate had submitted the tender giving an offer of 5 crore and 81 lakhs. It had also deposited 47 lakhs which was found to be the highest amoung all the builders. The Municipal Council accepted the bid and directed Mahadeo Real Estate to deposit 25% of the bid amount within 7 days and the same had been performed. However, two member of the municipal corporation raised the objection due to which the collector stayed further proceedings of the tender process. It has been alleged that the tenders invited in connection with transfer of the said land were not competitive. The NIT was published only in Indore edition of two Hindi Newspapers at Indore and as such there was no wide circulation. Ratio of the case The three judge bench of Supreme Court while setting aside a Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment that that interfered with order passed by Revenue Commissioner of Ujjain in a matter of issuing tenders for allotment of land on lease, for a period of 30 years, reiterated that while exercising its power of judicial review of administrative action, courts could not interfere with the administrative decision unless it suffers from the voice of illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety. Basic Principles of Judicial Review The Supreme Court in case of Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651, held 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. 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 subjected to control by judicial review can be classified as under: Illegality: This means the decision-maker must understand correctly the law that regulates his decision – making power and must give effect to it. Irrationality, namely, Wednesbury unreasonableness. Procedural impropriety. It could thus be seen that the scope of judicial review of an administrative action is very limited. Unless the court comes to a conclusion, that the decision maker has not understood the law correctly that regulates his decision-making power or when it is found that the decision of the decision maker is vitiated by irrationality and that too on the principle of “Wednesbury Unreasonableness” or unless it is found that there has been a procedural impropriety in the decision-making process, it would not be permissible for the High Court to interfere in the decision making process. It is equally well settled, that it is not permissible for the Court to examine the validity of the decision but this Court can examine only the correctness of the decision-making process.