P L D 1992 Karachi 283

 
Before Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui, CJ and Abdul Rahim Kazi, J
 
Messrs PACIFIC MULTINATIONAL (PVT.) LTD.---Petitioner
 
versus
 
INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, SINDH POLICE HEADQUARTERS and 2
others---Respondents
 
Constitutional Petition No.D-1258 of 1991, decided on 9th April, 1992.
 
(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)--
 
---- Art. 199 --- Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of --- Purchase of two "Ben Helicopters" by
Government --- Of two bids for purchase of such Helicopters, petitioner's bid was lowest, but
Government accepted respondent company's bid which was highest --- Preliminary objection
regarding maintainability of Constitutional petition on ground that subject-matter of
Constitutional petition being civil contract Court could not enforce it through exercise of its
Constitutional jurisdiction --- Constitutional petition was found to be maintainable; controversy
raised therein was capable of being reviewed by Court in exercise of its power under Art. 199 of
the Constitution.
 
There could be no cavil with the proposition that enforcement of a purely contractual
obligation could not properly form the subject-matter of proceedings under Article 199 of the
Constitution. However, it could not be ignored that the State had a Constitutional obligation to
act fairly even when performing an administrative function. Therefore, when a party complained
before the Court that the State while awarding a contract to a party had acted in an unfair or
arbitrary manner or had discriminated against one of the parties who contested for the award of
the contract, such grievance could be looked into by Superior Court in exercise of its powers of
judicial review under Article 199 of the Constitution and if the Court was satisfied that the
Government while entering into a contract had acted arbitrarily or in an unfair manner or had
discriminated between the parties before it in matter of awarding the contract, it could interfere
and strike down such action.
 
Herminder Singh v. Government of India (1986) 3 SCC 244; Ramana Dayaram Shetty
v. International Airport Authority AIR 1979 SC .1628; Munshi Muhammad v. Faizanul Haq
1971 SCMR 533 and Mirajuddin v. Noor Muhammad 1970 SCMR 542 reE
 
(b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)-
Art. 199 Constitutional jurisdiction exercise of – Petitioner and respondent offering bids for
purchase of Helicopters by government Respondent's bid was accepted by Government ---
Petitioner contended that award of contract for purchase of Helicopters to respondent by
Government, not only amounted to denial of legitimate right of petitioner to obtain such contract,
but it also showed arbitrary and unfair exercise of discretion by Government in selecting
contracting party, resulting in loss to public exchequer --- Petitioner's allegations did make out a
case for consideration by Court in exercise of its power under Art. 199 of the Constitution---
Constitutional petition was thus, maintainable in circumstances.
 
(c) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)--
 
---- Art. 199 --- Constitutional jurisdiction --- Purchase of Helicopters by Government ---
Respondent's bid though higher as compared to petitioner's bid for purchase of Helicopters was
accepted by Government --- Letters addressed to Government by manufacturing Company
indicating that respondent was its accredited agent for purchase of Helicopters in area concerned
and that respondent being authorised representative of the Company would offer complete
professional operations, maintenance and support services in Pakistan for owners of
manufacturing company --- Respondent Company undertook to offer; on site technical service;
administration of warranty; supply of technical documentation; and on call visit by customer
service representatives --- Such services offered by respondent Company were on account of its .
agency relation with manufacturer which a non-agent (petitioner) could not possibly offer ---
Contract under consideration related to purchase of very sophisticated machines in which apart
from price factor, other considerations, such as after sale service, regular supply of spares,
availability of technical assistance and advice relating to operation and maintenance of machines
were equally important and relevant factors for consideration while awarding contract ---
Decision of Government to purchase Helicopters in question, from respondent Company was,
thus, based on sound judgment and valid considerations --- No case for interference being made
out Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.
 
Aitzaz Ahsan for Petitioner.
A.G. Manghi, Addl. A.-G. and Khalid Anwar for Respondents,
 
Dates of hearing: 19th 20th, 20th, 27th and 28th November, 1991.
 
JUDGMENT
 
SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, CJ.,---The above petition was dismissed by us on
28-11-19.91 by the following short order:--
 
"We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents at length. For detailed
reasons to follow separately, the petition is disposed of in terms of the following short order:--
 
We hold that the above petition filed by the petitioner under
 
Article 199 of the Constitution is maintainable and the controversy raised therein is capable of
being reviewed by the Court in exercise of its power under Article 199 of the Constitution.
However, after going through the record before us and the undertaking filed before us today by
the respondent No.3 which will form part of the detailed reasons in case, we are of the view that
on merits the purchase of two Helicopters by Government of Sindh through respondent No.3
appeared to be more advantageous and, therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the
discretion exercised by the Government in electing to purchase the two. Helicopters through
respondent No.3. However, in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
The stay granted earlier is accordingly vacated."
 
These are the detailed reasons for the above short order. On 10-8-1991 respondent No.1
floated a gallop tender for purchase of two Helicopters for Sindh Police. The tender notice
published in daily "Dawn" contained the following specification of the Helicopters required by
respondent No.l.
 
"GALLOP TENDER NOTICE
 
Sealed tenders are invited for purchase of Two Helicopters for Sindh Police on C & F basis.
 
SPECIFICATION
 
I      Helicopter, 7 seat capacity             (a)Forward looking infra-Red devices to trace the
criminal in darkness
 
2.        Helicopter, 15-seat capacity                 (b) Observation aids, cameras, public address
equipment litter kit.
 
                                                            (c)        Night-sun-light having 30 million            candle
power
 
                                                            (d) It should also be equipped with necessary
communication
                                                            system covering the frequency range on wireless sets for
                                                            use of Sindh Police.
 
Bids addressed to the inspector-General of Police, Sindh must reach the Office by 18th August,
1991 at 1000 hours at the latest. Bids will be opened in presence of bidders the same day at 1200
hours.
 
DIG/H.QR.
'or Inspector-General of Police Sindh, Karachi.'
 
Six parties including the petitioner and respondent No.3 took part in the bidding. The purchase
Committee constituted by Government of Sindh, consisting of Home Secretary as Chairman,
Acting Finance Secretary and DIG Police (T & T) as Members, Assistant Secretary, Home
Department and Section Officer, Project Home Department as Co-opted members, to examine
the bids, met on 19-8-1991 and took the following decision.
 
"The Committee took following decision:
 
(i)     to provide copies of all tenders/brochures to Finance Secretary and D.I.-G. T&T for detail
scrutiny as to financial implications and other terms and conditions.
 
(ii)    D.I.-G. Police (T&T) will consult the Civil Aviation Authority regarding technical aspects
of the proposed helicopters. Their technical viability.
 
(iii) D.I.-G. Police (T&T) will provide the list of accessories essentially I required.
 
(iv)   D.I.-G. Police (T&T), will provide detail-, of operational details of the helicopters and its
financial implications.
 
.(v)    Acting Finance Secretary will ensure to have decision regarding funding of the purchase
by next meeting.
 
(vi)   The purchase shall be made as per codal formalities.
 
In line with the above decision of Purchase Committee, the D.I.-G. Police (T&T) prepared a
Technical Evaluation Report about Bell Model 412 HP and Bell Model 206 L-3. Helicopters
offered by Respondent No.4 and recommended their purchase by the Government through
Respondent No.4 who were the accreditted agents of the manufacturers in Pakistan and
possessed the necessary technical facilities and experties for the operation of these Helicopters.
The Purchase Committee met on 22-8-1991, and in the light of technical evaluating report of
DIG Police (T & T) took the following decision:
 
"(i)    Not to consider the offer of M/s. Altech International as their quote was not according to
specified requirements.
 
(ii)    The quote of M/s. System Enterprise was for old model and re conditioned helicopters, and
was considered not feasible.
 
(iii)   Not to consider the offer of M/s. Farber International Company as they did not quote any
model.
 
(iv)   M/s. International Aviation Services quoted for Black Hawk Helicopter which was
considered quite expensive.
 
(v) The quotes of M/s. Panjnad and Pacific Multinational were found according to the tender and
their representatives were requested to provide details regarding mode of financing and mode of
payment."
 
In accordance with the above decision of Purchase Committee, the Petitioner and Respondent
No.3 were short-listed and were accordingly asked to furnish further details in respect of the
machines offered by them for sale. After receiving the required information and details from
Petitioner and Respondent No.3, the Home Secretary submitted a summary to the Chief
 
Minister of Sindh recommending purchase of 'Bell Helicopters' from Petitioner as their bid was
strikingly lower than the bid of respondent No.3.
 
The Chief Secretary Sindh in his note on the above summary expressed reservations about the
difference of about Rs.18 millions in the prices of two helicopters of the same make quoted by
Petitioner and Respondent No.3,. and suggested that either the Respondent No.3, which was the
accredited agent of manufacturer of 'Bell Helicopters' in Pakistan, be asked to notice their offer
or a thorough investigation be made in the offer of petitioner with regard to the model and
specification of the machine offered by them for sale in view of the vast difference in the prices
offered by them. The Advisor to Chief Minister
 
on Home Affairs who scrutinised the summary before submitting the same to Chief Minister, in
his note on the summary observed that the accessories offered by Petitioner were not the same as
were offered by Respondent No.3 and as such the difference in the prices of Petitioner and
Respondent No.3 was not real. The Advisor on Home Affairs further observed in his note that
purchasing of 'Bell Helicopters' through Respondent No.3 would be definitely advantageous as
Respondent No3 were not the only accredited agents ' of manufacturers in Pakistan but they were
also operating 'Bell Helicopters' owned by the Federal Provincial Governments to the satisfaction
of all concerned for the last two years. Accordingly the Advisor to Chief Minister on home
affairs strongly recommended for purchase of 'Bell Helicopters' through Respondent No.3; The
Chief Minister of Sindh, agreed with the note of Advisor on home affairs and accordingly
approved the contract for purchase of 'Bell Helicopters' through Respondent No.3 on 22-9-1991.
 
In the above stated background, the, Petitioner moved this Court under Article 199 of the
Constitution and prayed for the following reliefs:-- ~
 
"(i)    Declare that the Petitioner, by virtue of its having submitted the lowest bid in response to
the tender notice, dated August 10, 1991, is entitled to the contract with Respondent No.1 on the
basis of the aforesaid notice;
 
(ii)    Declare the purport of Respondent No.1 not to recognise the Petitioner as the lowest bidder
is mala fide and without lawful authority.
 
(iii) Direct the Respondents to do that which they are not permitted by law to do i.e. not to
recognise Respondent No.3 as the lowest bidder or to award the contract to the Respondent No.3;
 
(iv)   Restrain Respondents Nos.1 and 2 from entering or purporting to enter upon any contract
pursuant to the aforesaid notice with Defendant No.3 and from taking, or continuing to take any
action/ step, in that behalf;
 
(v)    Direct the Respondents to recognise the Petitioner as the lowest bidder and to recognise it
as the only contracting party under the law and on the facts of the case.
 
(vi)   Grant costs of the Petition to the Petitioners, and
 
(vii) Grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the
interests of justice under the circumstances of this case."                      I
 
When the above petition came up for preliminary hearing on 9.10-1991, the Court observed that
the matter was of an urgent nature and huge amount of foreign exchange was involved which the
Government had to pay out of its own resources. Accordingly, the Court directed the Additional
Advocate-General Sindh who was present in the Court in some other cases to waive notice in the
case and seek instructions from the Government and posted the case for hearing on 10-9-1991.
On 10-9-1991, the relevant files were produced before the Court and after going through the
same, the Court observed that the contract was already awarded to Respondent No.3 which
meant that the Government had to pay approximately rupees two crores extra for purchase of
these helicopters. The decision of the Government to award the contract to Respondent No.3 in
the circumstances was prima facie found arbitrary and in the fight of the decisions in the cases of
Herminder Singh v. Government of India (1986) 3 Supreme Court Cases 244 and Ramana
Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority AIR 1979 SC 1628, cited by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, the Court found that the above petition raised question of substantial
importance and accordingly admitted it to regular hearing and ordered issuance of notices to
Respondent No.3. The Court simultaneously stayed the execution of contract for supply of 'Bell
Helicopters' by the Government in favour of Respondent No.3.
 
The respondents besides contesting the claim of Petitioner on merits have jointly raised a
preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the above Petition. It is contended by the
respondents jointly that as the subject matter of the petition is a civil contract, the Court cannot
enforce it in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction. Specially when disputed questions of facts
are involved in determining the rights of the parties under the contract. On merit the respondents
jointly contended that the selection of a party for awarding a contract is the discretion of
Government which cannot be interfered with by the Court as this discretion is exercised by the
Government on innumerable considerations which may not properly form the subject-matter of
judicial review within the scope of power exercised by the Court under Article 199 of the
Constitution. It was accordingly contended jointly by the respondents that in the present case the
contract related to purchase of helicopters, which are sophisticated machines, and therefore,
while awarding contract to Respondent No.3, the Government took into consideration that
Respondent No.3 was the only accredited agent of the manufacturer of 'Bell Helicopters' in
Pakistan, and was thus able to provide an after sale guarantee of the machine on behalf of the
manufacturer. The Government also took into consideration that Respondent No.3 as the
accredited agent of manufacturer was in a better position to ensure regular supply of spare parts
besides providing free technical advice and operational facilities for these helicopters. It is also
contended by the respondents that the difference in the prices quoted by the Petitioner and
Respondent No.3 was not genuine as the extra accessories offered by Respondent No.3 for the
helicopters were much more than those offered by the Petitioner. On these premises it is
contended by the respondents jointly that the award of contract for purchase of helicopters to
Respondent No.3 was based on relevant considerations which could not be interfered with by the
Court.
 
Before considering the case on merits, we would like to dispose of first, the preliminary
objection raised by the respondents.
 
There can be no cavil with the proposition that enforcement of a purely contractual obligation
cannot properly form the subject-matter of proceedings under Article 199 of the Constitution.
However, it cannot be ignored that the State has a Constitutional obligation to act fairly even
when performing an administrative function. Therefore, when a party complains before the Court
that the State while awarding a contract to a party has acted in an unfair or arbitrary manner or
has discriminated against one of the parties who contested for the award of the contract, such
grievance can be looked into by Superior Court in exercise of its powers of judicial review under
Article 199 of the Constitution and if the Court is satisfied that the Government while entering
into a contract has acted arbitrary or in an unfair manner or has discriminated between the parties
before it in matter of awarding the contract, it can interfere and strike down such action. Mr.
Khalid Anwar, the learned ,counsel for the Respondents has referred us to the cases of Munshi
Mohammad v. Faizanul Haq 1971 SCMR 533, and Mirajuddin v. Noor Mohammad 1970 SCMR
542, to contend that where a person had taken part in the bidding with the full knowledge that his
bid may or may not be approved by the concerned authorities, he cannot invoke the
Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court in the event of refusal of his bid. The cases referred by
Mr. Khalid Anwar are quite distinguishable. In the above-cited cases the properties were
auctioned under the provisions of Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act 1958,
and the terms and conditions of auction provided that the highest bid could be rejected without
assigning any reason. It was in this context that the Court in the above case's held that the
petitioners were not an aggrieved person within the meaning of Article 199 of the Constitution as
their bids were never accepted by the Settlement Authority who had reserved the right to reject
the highest bid without assigning any reason.
 
In the case before us the petitioner has alleged that the 'Bell Helicopters' offered by them
and respondent No.3 were same in all respects including the specification, while the prices
offered by the petitioner were much lower than the prices quoted by respondent No.3. It is also
contended by the petitioner that the Purchase Committee constituted by the Government to
consider the offers of petitioner and respondent No.3 also found the offer of petitioner much
lower than the offer of respondent No.3 and accordingly recommended to the Government to
award the contract to the petitioner. On the above premises, it is contended by the petitioner that
the award of contract for purchase of helicopters to respondent No.3 by the Government in the
above circumstances, not only amounted to the denial of the legitimate right of petitioner to
obtain the above contract, but it also showed an arbitrary and unfair exercise of discretion by the
Government in selecting a contracting party, resulting in loss to the public exchequer. The above
allegations of the petitioner do make out a case for consideration by the Court in exercise of its
power under Article 199 of the. Constitution. We, accordingly, overrule the preliminary
objection raised by the respondents and held that the petition is maintainable.
 
Having dealt with the preliminary objection of the respondents, we now proceed to consider the
case on merits. It is common ground between the parties that the Government had decided to
purchase helicopters manufactured by Bell Helicopter Textron Inc. The petitioner claimed that
the 'Bell Helicopters' offered by them were the same which were offered by respondent No.3.
The documents on record before us show that the make, model and specification of the
helicopters offered by the petitioner and respondent No.3 are almost identical. It is also clear
from the documents before us that price offered by the petitioner was lower by about 19 millions
as compared to the price quoted by respondent No.3, and therefore Purchase Committee
recommended for purchase of helicopters through the petitioner. However, on the summary
submitted to the Chief Minister of Sindh by the Home Secretary, the Chief Secretary, observed
that the difference in the prices created doubt as to authenticity of the offer of petitioner, as
respondent No.3 were the sole accredited agents of the manufacturer in Pakistan, and he
accordingly recommended that thorough probe be made in offer of petitioner to find out if the
model and specification were same and the machine offered by the petitioner was not a used one.
The Adviser of Chief Minister on Home Affairs who scrutinized the summary before submitting
the same to Chief Minister, found that the difference between the prices offered by the petitioner
~and respondent No.3 was not real, as the extra accessories offered by respondent No.1 were
much, more than those offered by the petitioner. The adviser to Chief Minister also expressed the
apprehension that the machines offered by the petitioner may not be new and may be used ones
or zero timed or low time which have been refurnished. The Adviser to Chief Minister also
observed that respondent No.3 being the only accredited agent of manufacturer in Pakistan and
having sold in the past over 50 helicopters to Federal and Provincial Governments, were in a
better position to provide warranty, technical and logistic support, training to crew, regular
supply of spares and facilities for operation and maintenance of these helicopters. It may. be
mentioned here that during the course of arguments the respondents very vehemently contended
that in view of the two letters of the manufacturer of Bell Helicopters dated 16-10-1991
addressed to Secretary Home, it became very risky for the Government to enter into the deal for
purchase of these helicopters through the petitioner. The letters were filed alongwith the
counter-affidavit of respondent No.1 and genuineness thereof was not disputed before us. It will
be advantageous to reproduce the contents of these letters as they have an important bearing on
the issues raised before us. The letters read as follows:-
 
"The Secretary, Home Department, Government of Sindh, Karachi, Pakistan.
 
October 16, 1991.
 
Sub: HELICOPTER REQUIREMENTS FOR SINDH GOVERNMENT
 
Dear Sir,
 
Bell Holicopter Taxtron Inc. is pleased to have responded to your Helicopter requirements
through Acrotron (Pvt.) Ltd., our only authorised representative in Pakistan. Aerotron, through
its sister companies, Panjnad Aviation Ltd., has submitted a proposal for the acquisition by the
Sindh Government of a new 15 place Bell 412 HP and a new 7 place Bell 206 L-3
Longranger. Aerotron and its predecessors have represented Bell Helicopter Textron Inc.,
in Pakistan for over 15 years, having provided excellence services to our customers including
the Edhi Foundation, Aga Khan Foundation, Tourism Development Corporation of Punjab
and the Pakistan Army.
 
 Panjnad Aviation Ltd. (PAL) is a Pakistan registered and licensed, commercial helicopter
operating company which offers complete professional operations, maintenance and support
services in Pakistan for the owners of Bell Manufactured Helicopters.
 
We understand that you have also received offers for Bell helicopter products from other
companies. We believe, however, that there are advantages which accrue to the customer by
procurement through our authorised representative organizations. These advantages include
experienced implementation of our warranty programme, expeditious co-ordination of regional
technical advisors and logistics representatives, prompt order service and supply of only genuine
Bell spare parts from our Amsterdam supply Center, coordination of training schedules with the
Bell Training Academy and immediately available in country assistance and after sales support
as required.
 
We assure you that the products offered are new to be completed in our manufacturing facilities
to your specification and customised as required with the finest materials and workmanship
standards to satisfy your various mission requirements. Interior appointments and exterior paint
schemes may be selected to satisfy the most discriminating tastes.
 
We urge your early commitment to the proposal submitted by Aerotron through Panjnad
Aviation so that we may avoid delays which could adversely impact pricing and delivery
schedules.
 
If we or our representatives may be of any service to you, please do not hesitate to contact us.
 
The Secretary, Home Department, Government of Sindh, Karachi, Pakistan.
 
Dear Sir,
 
Sincerely,
 
BELL HELICOPTER TEXTRON INC. (Sd.)
 
Grant F. Mackie
 
Regional Manager, Middle East."
 
October 16, 1991.
 
It has come to our attention that another party has elected to propose a Bell Model 20OL-3
Helicopter and a Bell 412 Helicopter to meet a requirement of the Sindh Government. Please be
advised that only Panjnad Aviation Ltd., has made arrangements to have these helicopters
available in the near term. As we review the orders placed for Bell Helicopters, none others have
been reserved for use in Pakistan. Any entity ordering new aircraft at this time would face the
normal queues for the installation of kits.and customizing items and would likely face a price
increase due to the delivery taking place in calendar year, 1992.
 
Please let me know if we can be of assistance.
Sincerely,
 
(Sd.)
 
Rex Marion
Vice-President
 
Commercial Business Operations."
 
             In the light of above letters of the manufacturer of Bell Helicopters and the contentions
of the respondents that in the circumstances it is highly doubtful that the petitioner could supply
the helicopters offered by them on the prices quoted by them, we enquired from the learned
counsel for the petitioner if his client was prepared to execute a performance bond in case the
contract is awarded by the Government to them, Ch. Aitzaz Ahsan, the learned Counsel
for the petitioner, after consulting his client submitted the following affidavit on 28-11-1991:
 
AFFIDAVIT
 
1, Hamiduddin Bajwa son of Ch. Bashir Ahmad Rajwa., Muslim adult, resident of 19, Cavalry
Grounds, Street 1, Lahore Cantt. a present residing at Karachi do hereby state on solemn
affirmation a under:
 
1)    That if the Sindh Government execute the contract referred to in the Constitution Petition
the Petitioner agrees to submit to it a performance bond to the extent of 1% (one per cent) of the
agreed price upon the execution of the contract.
 
(2) Whatever stated above is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
 
Karachi Dated: 28-11-1991.
 
 
(S.d)
Deponent"
 
simultaneously, we also asked from Mr. Khalid Anwar, the learned counsel for respondent N0.3,
that his client being the sole and the only accredited agent of the manufacturer in Pakistan,
should 'be in a position to offer for sale the helicopters ,at least at the prices offered by a person
who is not the agent of the manufacture~ besides 'other facilitie's which his client is offering free
to the Government. In response to it, Mr. Khalid Anwar voluntarily placed before us- the
following undertaking on be half of his client:
 
A (1) On site technical services in Pakistan free of cost for the life of the helicopters sold.
 
 (2)  Administration of warranty.
 
(3)   Free supply of technical documentation.
 
 
(4)   On-call visits by Bell Customer Service representatives free of cost for       the life of the
Helicopters.
 
(5)   Advice and guidance relative to operation and maintenance free of cost.
 
(Sd.) 27-11-1991 for and on behalf of Punjnad Aviation (Pvt.) Limited. M. Khurshid Iqbal.
 
B     (1) The price of the Bell 412 SP Helicopter will be reduced and similarly the price of the
Bell 200 L-3 Helicopter will be reduced by US $110,610.
 
2) The Pakistan Rupee Price will be computed on the basis of the prevailing FEBC rate at the
time payment is received.
 
(Sd.) 27-11- )91
 
(Sd.) Advocate for Respondent 3.
 
From the above-stated facts it is quite clear that the prices for the two I Bell Helicopters
now offered by the petitioner and respondent No.3 are the same. Apart from the price factor, the
respondent No.3 has offered following free services:-
 
(i)    On-site technical service in Pakistan.
 
(ii)   Administration of warranty.
 
(iii)   Supply of Technical documentation.
 
(iv), I On call visit by Bell Customer Service Representatives.
 
These four services offered by respondent No.3 were on account of their agency relation with the
manufacturer which a non-agent could not Possibly offer. It could not be disputed that contract
under consideration related to the purchase of very sophisticated machines in which apart from
the price factor, other considerations such as, after sale service, regular supply of spares,
availability of technical assistance and advice relating to operation and .maintenance of machines
very equally important and relevant factor for consideration while, awarding the contract. Judged
in the light of above considerations, we find that the decision of the Government to purchase the
two Bell Helicopters from respondent No.3 was based on sound judgment and valid
considerations. No case for interference is made-out. The petition is dismissed accordingly.
Parties to bear their respective costs.
 
A.A./P-244/K                                                                                                  Petition dismissed.