Judicial review limits on municipal self-financing projects: absence of tender alone does not make the arrangement arbitrary or illegal.

Judicial review of a municipal decision to entrust a self-financing pilot project for street signboards and direction boards was held to be limited to the decision-making process. The absence of a public tender or auction, by itself, did not render the arrangement arbitrary or illegal where the project was novel, had undergone experimentation and approvals, and imposed no financial burden on the Corporation. Interference was justified only for mala fides, arbitrariness, irrationality, procedural impropriety, or breach of constitutional or statutory limits. The statutory provisions invoked were found inapplicable to this self-financing arrangement, and the writ challenge was viewed as serving a private rather than genuine public interest.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court was justified in interfering under Article 226 with the Corporation's decision to entrust a self-financing pilot project for street signboards and direction boards to the appellant.

Analysis: The arrangement was treated as a novel public utility project undertaken to improve house numbering and road directions without financial burden on the Corporation. The record showed a prolonged process of experimentation, modifications, and approval of sample boards before the appellant was permitted to execute the work on specified terms. The Court held that absence of public tender or auction, by itself, did not make the decision arbitrary or illegal. Judicial review was confined to the decision-making process, and interference was warranted only for mala fides, arbitrariness, irrationality, procedural impropriety, or violation of constitutional or statutory limits. On the facts, the writ petition was viewed as having been pursued for private interest rather than genuine public interest, and the statutory provisions relied upon were found inapplicable to this self-financing arrangement.

Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in setting aside the Corporation's action; the interference was unwarranted.

---