Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 341 (1.38 seconds)Documents citing
Reliance Energy Limited & Another vs Maharashtra State Road Development ... on 11 September, 2007
Seth Industrial Corpn vs State & Anr on 7 October, 2016
In such circumstances, the decision
rendered in Reliance Energy Ltd. & Anr. vs.
Maharashtra State Road Development Corpn.
Ltd. & Ors. (supra) is also of no help to the
petitioner.
Shree Shubham Logistics Limited vs State Of Rajasthan, Through Its ... on 30 August, 2018
75. Taking into consideration the aforesaid circumstances and
the eligibility conditions which this Court has found to be arbitrary,
suffering from perversity, tailor made and also in violation of the
provisions contained under the RTPP Act, this Court deems it
appropriate to quash the NIT dated 11/07/2018 issued by the
respondent-RSWC and strike down the eligibility conditions laid
down therein as well as the condition by which the petitioner-SSLL
has been excluded from participation. This court is satisfied that
the action of the respondents amounts to disturbing the level
playing field as one of the facet of right to life under Article 21 of
the Constitution as held by the Supreme Curt in the case of
Reliance Energy Ltd. and another Vs. Maharashtra State
Road Development Corpn. Ltd. and others (supra).
Rarefield Engineering Pvt. Limited vs The Chairman on 14 October, 2009
41. Applying the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Reliance Energy Limited and another v. Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Limited and others (2007) 8 SCC 1, I am of the view that awarding of the contract in favour of the 3rd respondent deserves to be set aside.
Consortium Of M/S Siemens ... vs Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd And Anr on 15 May, 2013
87. The judgments referred to by the Learned Senior Advocate for the
Petitioner do not apply in the facts of the present case. No doubt
the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Reliance Energy Ltd. And Anr. Vs.
Maharashtra State Road Development Corpn. Ltd. And Ors
(2007) 8 SCC 1 has laid down that "Level playing field" is an
WP (C) Nos. 1853/2013 & 2615/2013 Page 41 of 44
importance concept while construing Article 19(1)(g) of the
Constitution. However the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the said
judgment also laid down:
M/S.Sri Adinath Traders vs The Union Of India on 5 February, 2016
Since the petitioner has not even made the application, he cannot challenge the impugned notice and as such, the writ petition is not maintainable. The classification is perfectly valid in the eye of law. The provisional cap has been increased subsequently and the object is to make sure that the seed is supplied. It is also meant for import obligation being complied with. The above said decision of the learned Single Judge of the Karnatka High Court would govern the field. Even assuming the said decision may not be absolutely perfect, certain latitude is required to be made. Reliance has been made to the said decision of the Karnatka High Court in W.P.No.42816 of 2015 dated 5.1.2016.
Shreejikrupa Project Limited vs Telecommunication Consultants India ... on 26 July, 2023
29. The said decision in Reliance Energy [Reliance Energy
Ltd. v. Maharashtra State Road Development Corpn. Ltd.,
(2007) 8 SCC 1] has no direct application to the facts of the
present case and even otherwise, it has not been the finding of
the High Court that the term stated by the tender inviting
authority--NVS was lacking in certainty. However, beyond this,
as to which particular product was to be treated as similar
category product, could not have been a matter of
interpretative exercise by the Court, particularly when the view
taken by the tender inviting authority and its Evaluation
Committee has not been shown to be absurd or irrational or
suffering from mala fides.
Vinkal Sharma And Others vs Union Territory Of J&K And Others on 8 December, 2022
60. In the present case, from the record it appears that whole action of
respondent No.1 from the very beginning till award of contract is to favour
respondent No.2 at the cost of other bidders, who have equal rights to
participate by providing a level playing field ensuring fair competition.
Thus, action of respondent No.1 in restricting the zone of consideration by
manipulating the terms and conditions of tender notice is violative of
Article 14, 21 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution for all other competing
bidders. Paras 36 of Reliance Energy Limited v. Maharashtra State Road
Development Corporation Limited, (2007) 8 SCC 1.
Sh. Chaman Lal vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 13 January, 2010
What is permissible to be interfered in a policy decision is only the decision making process, as ruled by the Apex Court in Reliance Energy Limited & another v. Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Limited & others, (2007) 8 SCC 1 that an act of the administrative authority amenable to be interfered when it suffers from illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety.
Amit Kishan Madan vs Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran And ... on 29 July, 2024
In Reliance Energy Limited & Another versus
Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd. & Others's case
(supra), the Apex Court, while relying upon the judgment of the Constitution
Bench of the Supreme Court of India in the case of I.R.Coelho v. State of
Tamil Nadu, (2007) 2 SCC 1, held that the standards applied by Courts in
Judicial review must be justified by constitutional principles which govern
39 of 41
::: Downloaded on - 31-07-2024 23:56:49 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:095088-DB
CWP-16027-2024 40
the proper exercise of public power in democracy. It was held that Article 14
is not a free-standing provision and has to be read in conjunction with rights
conferred by other Articles like Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It was
held that Article 21/14 of the Constitution of India is the heart of the chapter
on fundamental rights and it covers various aspects of life including the
concept of 'level playing field' which is an important concept while
construing Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. It was held that the
said doctrine provides space within which equally-placed competitors are
allowed to bid so as to subserve the larger public interest. The effort of
learned counsel for the petitioner was to convince the Court that by adopting
the Swiss challenge method, respondent No.1 had not provided a level
playing field. We are not inclined to accept this argument because the
petitioner, in the first place, has failed to prove that he has an equal standing
as that of the private respondents or of other similarly placed entities. Still
further, an equal opportunity was provided to all serious players and even the
petitioner could have participated in the auction process. The judgment
would, therefore, not come to the aid of the petitioner.