Read Time: 06 minutes

"We advise the High Courts not to make general observations which are not warranted in the case. The High Courts shall refrain from making sweeping observations which are beyond the contours of the controversy and/or issues before them...", remarked a bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna on Thursday.

With this view, the court ordered that the observations made by the Delhi High Court in its order be expunged/set aside from the order passed by the High Court.

While disposing of a writ petition filed by Bharat Fritz Werner Limited regarding grant of a tender, the Delhi High Court had said,

"We also permit the petitioner to make a representation addressed to the Hon’ble Prime Minister of India highlighting the aspects with regard to wrongful evaluation of the bids and discrimination meted out to some of the bidders. In case such a representation is made, we request the PMO to ensure that the same receives the attention of the Hon’ble Prime Minister of India. We are inclined to grant this liberty to the petitioner in the light of the fact that the petitioner is an Indian manufacturer and we had earlier found merit in the claim of the petitioner in Macpower CNC Machines Limited v. Union of India [W.P. No. 3942/2020] that Indian bidders are being discriminated against, even though the tender conditions itself stipulated that Indian manufacturers would be given preference. Keeping in view the fact that the Government of India is laying emphasis on “Make in India (Atma-Nirbharta), the grievances of the petitioner appear to be correct and, in our view, require serious consideration at the highest level.”

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with some of the observations made by the High Court in the last paragraph of its order dated January 19, 2021, the Union of India had preferred an appeals.

The top court was of the opinion that the observations made by the High Court were absolutely unwarranted. 

"The High Court was not deciding a Public Interest Litigation. The High Court did not even decide the writ petition on merits. On the contrary, in the earlier paragraph, it was observed that it had not gone into the merits of the writ petitioner’s claim or the respondent’s defence. In such circumstances, such general observations should have been avoided by the High Court and the High Court ought to have restricted itself to the controversy between the parties before it. Even otherwise, on the basis of a solitary case, general observations could not have been made by the High Court that the Indian bidders are being discriminated against.", said the bench.

Accordingly, the appeal was partly allowed while directing to expunge the aforementioned observations of the High Court.

Cause Title: Union of India v. Bharat Fritz Werner Limited & Another