Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 45 (0.35 seconds)Article 12 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 37 in The International Airports Authority Act, 1971 [Entire Act]
Sukhdev Singh, Oil & Natural Gas ... vs Bhagat Ram, Association Of Clause Ii. ... on 21 February, 1975
Whilst accepting the test laid down in Rajasthan Electricity
Board v. Mohan Lal (supra), and followed by Ray, C. J., in
Sukhdev v. Bhagat Ram (supra), we would, for reasons already
discussed, prefer to adopt the test of Governmental
instrumentality or agency as one more test and perhaps a
more satisfactory one for determining whether a statutory
corporation, body or other authority falls within the
definition of 'State'. If a statutory corporation, body or
other authority is an instrumentality or agency of
Government, it would be an 'authority' and therefore 'State'
within the meaning of that expression in Article 12.
Section 16 in The International Airports Authority Act, 1971 [Entire Act]
State Of Orissa And Ors vs Harinarayan Jaiswal And Ors on 14 March, 1972
The last decision to which reference was made on behalf
of the respondents was the decision in P. R. Quenin v. M. K.
Tendel(1) This decision merely reiterates the principle laid
down in the earlier decisions in Trilochan Mishra v. State
of Orissa (supra) and State of Orissa v. Harinarayan Jaiswal
(supra) and points out that a condition that the Government
shall be at liberty to accept or reject any bid without
assigning any reason therefor is not violative of Article 14
and that "in matters relating to contracts with the
Government, the latter is not bound to accept the tender of
the person who offers the highest amount". Now where does it
say that such a condition permits the Government to act
arbitrarily in accepting a tender or that under the guise or
pretext of such a condition, the Government may enter into a
contract with any person it likes, arbitrarily and without
reason. In fact the Court pointed out at the end of the
judgment that the act of the Government was not "shown to be
vitiated by such arbitrariness as should call for
interference by the Court", recognising clearly that if the
rejection of the tender of the 1st respondent were
arbitrary, the Court would have been justified in striking
it down as invalid.
Rajasthan State Electricity Board, ... vs Mohan Lal & Ors on 3 April, 1967
Whilst accepting the test laid down in Rajasthan Electricity
Board v. Mohan Lal (supra), and followed by Ray, C. J., in
Sukhdev v. Bhagat Ram (supra), we would, for reasons already
discussed, prefer to adopt the test of Governmental
instrumentality or agency as one more test and perhaps a
more satisfactory one for determining whether a statutory
corporation, body or other authority falls within the
definition of 'State'. If a statutory corporation, body or
other authority is an instrumentality or agency of
Government, it would be an 'authority' and therefore 'State'
within the meaning of that expression in Article 12.
The Companies Act, 1956
Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Ltd vs State Of West Bengal & Anr on 11 November, 1974
This principle was recognised and
applied by a Bench of this Court presided over by Ray, C.J.,
in Erusian Equipment and Chemicals v. State of West Bengal
(supra) where the learned Chief Justice pointed out that
"the State can carry on executive function by making a law
or without making a law. The exercise of such powers and
functions in trade by the State is subject to Part III of
the Constitution. Article 14 speaks of equality before the
law and equal protection of the laws. Equality of
opportunity should apply to matters of public contracts. The
State has the right to trade. The State has there the duty
to observe equality. An ordinary individual can choose not
to deal with any person The Government cannot choose to
exclude persons by discrimination. The order of black-
listing has the effect of depriving a person of equality of
opportunity in the matter of public contract. A person who
is on the approved list is unable to enter into advantageous
relations with the Government because of the order of
blacklisting.... A citizen has a right to claim equal
treatment to enter into a contract which may be proper,
necessary and essential to his lawful calling....It is true
that neither the petitioner nor the respondent has any right
to enter into a contract but they are entitled to equal
treatment with others who offer tender or quotations for the
purchase of the
(1) [1974] 2 S. C. R. 348.
Rashbihari Panda Etc vs State Of Orissa on 16 January, 1969
third parties. We have no doubt that the Court could not
have intended to lay down such a proposition because
Hidayatullah J. who delivered the judgment of the Court in
this case was also a party to the judgment in Rashbihari
Panda v. State of Orissa (supra) which was also a decision
of the Constitution Bench, where it was held in so many
terms that the State cannot act arbitrarily in selecting
persons with whom to enter into contracts. Obviously what
the Court meant to say was that merely because one person is
chosen in preference to another, it does not follow that
there is a violation of Article 14, because the Government
must necessarily be entitled to make a choice. But that does
not mean that the choice be arbitrary or fanciful. The
choice must be dictated by public interest and Must not be
unreasoned or unprincipled.