Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 907 (1.55 seconds)

M/S Mobile Caterers Welfare ... vs The Union Of India Through The Secretary on 27 February, 2024

21. What can be culled out from the afore-quoted judgments is the limited scope the writ court has of judicial review of the tender process or the decision-making process. The rationale behind issuance of Commercial Circular No. 24/2023 has been suitably explained in the objectives as well as in the counter affidavit and the impugned Circular is based on sound reasoning and such administrative action does not espouse any arbitrariness. The policy is aimed at benefiting a large section of passengers by providing them with good quality hygienic food. In these modern times upgrading the facilities in the trains and making endeavour to provide good quality food prepared at standard kitchens supervised by IRCTC are laudable exercise initiated by the respondents which will ultimately benefit the travellers in the trains. The act of the respondents in issuance of Commercial Circular No. 24/2023 does not suffer from any arbitrariness or unreasonableness and was not designed to exclude the petitioners and bestow favour on someone. The exclusion of Joint Venture /Consortium in the addendum is also as per the policy decision of the respondents and though learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has referred to Commercial Circular No. 29/2023 but the same relates to a pilot project of Yatri Seva Anubandh (YSA) -35- and it encompasses several facilities which has to be ensured by the service provider. The pilot project operating in a separate domain cannot be taken to be a benchmark to question the action of the respondents and term it as arbitrary. The questions which were formulated in the case of "Michigan Rubber (India) Limited versus State of Karnataka and Others" (supra) and which has been quoted above is answered in the negative. This Court in exercise of the powers of writ jurisdiction as repeatedly stated above has a limited jurisdiction of exercising its powers of judicial review and since the Commercial Circular No. 24/2023 does not indicate any arbitrariness in the action of the respondents, we refrain from entertaining this writ application and consequently the same is hereby dismissed.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - R Mukhopadhyay - Full Document

Ms Saksham Enterprises vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 17 November, 2017

57. The issue raised in the writ petition is no longer res integra. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka & others reported in (2012) 8 SCC 216 has held that (a) in the matter of formulating conditions of a tender document, greater latitude is required to be conceded to the State authorities (b) certain preconditions or qualifications for tenders have to be laid down to ensure that the contractor has the capacity and the resources to successfully execute the work. In the said judgment, it has further been held in para 23 that no person can claim Fundamental Right to carry on business with the Government.
Uttarakhand High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - M K Tiwari - Full Document

S.Manivel vs The Superintending Engineer on 13 July, 2018

(f) The tender inviting authorities can impose different conditions for different work and as such they imposed certain conditions and the tenderer cannot decide the conditions while calling for tenders by the Government and therefore, this ground is to be ignored as ruled inter alia by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Meerut Development Authority vs. Association of Management Studies [(2009) 6 SCC 171] and also in the case of Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd vs. The State of Karnataka [(2012) 8 SCC 216], to the effect that the terms of invitation of tender cannot be open to judicial scrutiny because the invitation to tender is in the realm of contract.

Briskworld Ventures Private Limited vs Central Warehousing Corporation And ... on 14 October, 2022

11. The principles enunciated by the Apex Court does not warrant a High Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 226 of the Constitution of India to sit as an Appellate Authority over each and every decision of the tenderer to examine minutely and come to a conclusion different from that of the tenderer. If the decision made by the Authority is not mala fide or not intended to favour someone and if the decision making process is not arbitrary Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL SINGH W.P.(C) 12930/2022 Page 9 of 10 Signing Date:14.10.2022 19:50:05 and irrational then the Courts must desist from interfering with the decision taken by the Authority [Refer: Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (2012) 8 SCC 216; Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa, (2007) 14 SCC 517; Raunaq International Ltd. v. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. & Ors., (1999) 1 SCC 492; N.G. Projects Limited v. Vinod Kumar Jain & Ors., (2022) 6 SCC 127].
Delhi High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - S C Sharma - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next