Article 14 fairness in strategic collaborations does not always require tenders when the best technology is selected on merits.

A strategic public-sector collaboration for superior technology was assessed under Article 14 on fairness, not on an automatic tender requirement. The authority's decision to enter a joint venture and memorandum of understanding with the selected collaborator was upheld because the chosen foreign partner was treated as technologically superior, while competing proposals were rejected on merits as unproven or inferior. The Government directive issued under the company's articles was also held valid, since ministerial approval and governmental control were sufficient and personal issuance in the President's name was treated as a matter of form. The challenge to the collaboration and directive therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the decision to enter into a joint venture and memorandum of understanding with the chosen collaborator was arbitrary, mala fide, or vitiated for want of fairness under Article 14; (ii) Whether the Government directive issued under the company's articles was without authority because it was not issued personally by the President; (iii) Whether the offers of the competing bidders were unfairly rejected or required to be evaluated through a tender process.

Issue (i): Whether the decision to enter into a joint venture and memorandum of understanding with the chosen collaborator was arbitrary, mala fide, or vitiated for want of fairness under Article 14.

Analysis: The collaboration was not a simple case of leasing public property or awarding a contract. The object was to secure superior technology for improving production, quality, and yield in a strategic industrial undertaking. The selected collaborator's foreign partner was found to be the world leader in the field, while the competing proposals were rejected by the board on merits as technologically inferior or unproven. In such a case, strict tendering was not obligatory, and the relevant requirement was that the authority act fairly and secure the best available arrangement in the circumstances.

Conclusion: The impugned decision was not shown to be arbitrary or mala fide and did not violate Article 14.

Issue (ii): Whether the Government directive issued under the company's articles was without authority because it was not issued personally by the President.

Analysis: The expression used in the articles was construed in the context of a Government company functioning as an instrumentality of the State. The directive was issued with ministerial approval as an act of governmental control over the company, and the requirement of issuance in the President's name was treated as a matter of form, not a condition of invalidity. The directive was also binding on the company's authorities.

Conclusion: The directive was valid and competent.

Issue (iii): Whether the offers of the competing bidders were unfairly rejected or required to be evaluated through a tender process.

Analysis: The competing offers were considered by the board and its sub-committee, and the rejection of the proposals was based on the relative merits of the technologies offered. One proposal used unproven commercial technology, another offered technology found to be no better than the existing process, and a later entrant could not complain of inadequate consideration. The law did not compel a tender process in the facts of this case.

Conclusion: The rejection of the competing offers was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the memorandum of understanding and the Government directive failed, and the appeal was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a public authority seeks a strategic technological collaboration for a State instrumentality, Article 14 requires fairness but does not invariably mandate tenders; if the authority considers the available options on merit and selects the best available arrangement, the decision will not be invalid merely because competing offers were not accepted.

---