Government contracts and administrative law
I. Introduction
Government contracts are agreements entered into by the State or its instrumentalities (like government departments, PSUs, etc.) with private individuals or entities for procurement of goods, services, or works. These contracts are governed not just by the Indian Contract Act, 1872, but also by the principles of constitutional and administrative law—especially Articles 14 and 299 of the Constitution of India.
II. Legal Framework
Article 299 of the Constitution:
Lays down the formal requirements for a valid government contract:
Must be made in the name of the President or Governor.
Must be executed by an authorized person.
Must be in writing.
Contracts not complying with these are void and unenforceable.
Article 14:
Ensures that government actions, including contractual decisions, must be fair, non-arbitrary, and transparent.
The government cannot act like a private individual; its decisions must meet the test of reasonableness.
Administrative Law Principles:
Judicial Review applies to government contracts when public interest, fairness, or procedural irregularity is involved.
Doctrine of legitimate expectation, mala fide, and natural justice may apply.
III. Landmark Case Laws
Here are five detailed case laws that explain the relationship between government contracts and administrative law in India:
1. K.P. Chowdhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1967 SC 203
Facts:
The government awarded a contract for monopoly rights in liquor vending.
The petitioner challenged the cancellation of the contract without assigning any reason.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that although the government has freedom to contract, it cannot act arbitrarily.
However, if a contract is entered without complying with Article 299, it is unenforceable in law, even if it is acted upon.
Significance:
Emphasized the mandatory nature of Article 299.
Government contracts not fulfilling Article 299's requirements are void ab initio, even if fully performed.
2. State of Bihar v. Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 110
Facts:
The government placed orders for coal supply without executing a formal contract.
The supplier delivered the goods, but the government later refused payment.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that the absence of a contract in accordance with Article 299 made the agreement unenforceable.
However, the Court acknowledged that compensation may be claimed under Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act for services rendered.
Significance:
Reinforced that Article 299 compliance is mandatory, but quasi-contractual relief under Section 70 may still be available in some cases.
3. Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, AIR 1979 SC 1628
Facts:
A government authority invited tenders for running a canteen at an airport.
One party who did not fulfill the eligibility conditions was still awarded the contract.
The petitioner challenged this decision as being arbitrary and discriminatory.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that even in contractual matters, Article 14 applies.
The government cannot arbitrarily select a contractor. The process must be fair, transparent, and non-discriminatory.
Significance:
Landmark case linking government contracts with constitutional law.
Established that government is not free to act arbitrarily in contractual matters.
4. Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651
Facts:
The government rejected Tata's bid for cellular licenses without disclosing clear reasons.
Tata challenged the decision as being arbitrary and lacking transparency.
Held:
The Supreme Court laid down the scope of judicial review in contractual matters:
Courts can intervene if there's illegality, irrationality, mala fides, or procedural impropriety.
Courts cannot substitute their own decision for that of the government.
Significance:
Defined limits of judicial review in tender and contract matters.
Emphasized the importance of fairness, reasonableness, and transparency in government contracts.
5. Sterling Computers Ltd. v. M/s. M & N Publications Ltd., (1993) 1 SCC 445
Facts:
Government awarded a contract without floating tenders and without giving all eligible parties an opportunity.
The petitioner challenged this on the basis of lack of transparency and equal opportunity.
Held:
The Court reiterated that government action must conform to Article 14.
Even in matters of contract, the State must act fairly and avoid arbitrariness.
Significance:
Confirmed that government contract awards are subject to constitutional discipline.
Highlighted the necessity of equal opportunity and public interest in government dealings.
IV. Summary of Legal Position
| Aspect | Legal Position |
|---|---|
| Formal Requirements | Must comply with Article 299 – in writing, in the name of President/Governor, signed by authorized officer. |
| Enforceability | Contracts not complying with Article 299 are void. |
| Arbitrariness | Government must act fairly and transparently (Article 14). |
| Judicial Review | Permissible on grounds of mala fides, illegality, bias, or procedural impropriety. |
| Quasi-contracts | Relief may be available under Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. |
V. Conclusion
The law relating to government contracts in India blends contractual law principles with constitutional and administrative law values. The government, unlike private individuals, is required to act with fairness, transparency, and adherence to legal procedures. The courts have consistently held that public interest must guide government contracting, and arbitrariness or favoritism can be struck down through judicial review.
RELATED Blog
0 comments