Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 21 (2.38 seconds)
M/S Ujjain Dreams vs State Of Rajasthan on 17 February, 2026 cites

Bharat Amratlal Kothari vs Dosukhan Samadkhan Sindhi & Ors on 4 November, 2009

"12. We have in the above backdrop heard learned Counsel for the parties at some length who have taken us (Uploaded on 17/02/2026 at 06:08:59 PM) (Downloaded on 17/02/2026 at 08:55:12 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:6524] (33 of 34) [CW-1439/2026] through the impugned orders and other material placed on record. Appearing for the Appellants, Mr. P.P. Rao, learned senior Counsel, argued that the High Court had committed an error in quashing the entire selection process even when the Petitioners had not made any prayer to that effect. Mr. Rao was at pains to argue that a relief which was not even prayed for by the writ Petitioners could not be granted by the Court whatever may have been the compulsion of equity, justice and good conscience. Reliance in support of that proposition was placed by him upon Bharat Amritlal Kothari v. Dosukhan (2010) 1 SCC 234 and State of Orissa and Anr. v. Mamata Mohanty (2011) 3 SCC 436. There is, in our view, no merit in that contention. The reasons are not far to seek. It is true that the writ Petitioners had not impleaded the selected candidates as party Respondents to the case. But it is wholly incorrect to say that the relief prayed for by the Petitioners could not be granted to them simply because there was no prayer for the same. The writ Petitioners, it is evident, on a plain reading of the writ petition questioned not only the process of evaluation of the answer scripts by the Commission but specifically averred that the "Model Answer Key" which formed the basis for such evaluation was erroneous. One of the questions that, therefore, fell for consideration by the High Court directly was whether the "Model Answer Key" was correct. The High Court had aptly referred that question to experts in the field who, as already noticed above, found the "Model Answer Key" to be erroneous in regard to as many as 45 questions out of a total of 100 questions contained in 'A' series question paper. Other errors were also found to which we have referred earlier. If the key which was used for evaluating the answer sheets was itself defective the result prepared on the basis of the same could be no different. The Division Bench of the High Court was, therefore, perfectly justified in holding that the result of the examination in so far as the same pertained to 'A' series question paper was vitiated. This was bound to affect the result of the entire examination qua every candidate whether or not he was a party to the proceedings. It also goes without saying that if the result was vitiated by the application of a wrong key, any appointment made on the basis thereof would also be rendered unsustainable. The High Court was, in that view, entitled to mould the relief prayed for in the writ petition and issue directions considered necessary not only to maintain the purity of the selection process but also to (Uploaded on 17/02/2026 at 06:08:59 PM) (Downloaded on 17/02/2026 at 08:55:12 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:6524] (34 of 34) [CW-1439/2026] ensure that no candidate earned an undeserved advantage over others by application of an erroneous key.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 229 - J M Panchal - Full Document

State Of Orissa & Anr vs Mamata Mohanty on 9 February, 2011

"12. We have in the above backdrop heard learned Counsel for the parties at some length who have taken us (Uploaded on 17/02/2026 at 06:08:59 PM) (Downloaded on 17/02/2026 at 08:55:12 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:6524] (33 of 34) [CW-1439/2026] through the impugned orders and other material placed on record. Appearing for the Appellants, Mr. P.P. Rao, learned senior Counsel, argued that the High Court had committed an error in quashing the entire selection process even when the Petitioners had not made any prayer to that effect. Mr. Rao was at pains to argue that a relief which was not even prayed for by the writ Petitioners could not be granted by the Court whatever may have been the compulsion of equity, justice and good conscience. Reliance in support of that proposition was placed by him upon Bharat Amritlal Kothari v. Dosukhan (2010) 1 SCC 234 and State of Orissa and Anr. v. Mamata Mohanty (2011) 3 SCC 436. There is, in our view, no merit in that contention. The reasons are not far to seek. It is true that the writ Petitioners had not impleaded the selected candidates as party Respondents to the case. But it is wholly incorrect to say that the relief prayed for by the Petitioners could not be granted to them simply because there was no prayer for the same. The writ Petitioners, it is evident, on a plain reading of the writ petition questioned not only the process of evaluation of the answer scripts by the Commission but specifically averred that the "Model Answer Key" which formed the basis for such evaluation was erroneous. One of the questions that, therefore, fell for consideration by the High Court directly was whether the "Model Answer Key" was correct. The High Court had aptly referred that question to experts in the field who, as already noticed above, found the "Model Answer Key" to be erroneous in regard to as many as 45 questions out of a total of 100 questions contained in 'A' series question paper. Other errors were also found to which we have referred earlier. If the key which was used for evaluating the answer sheets was itself defective the result prepared on the basis of the same could be no different. The Division Bench of the High Court was, therefore, perfectly justified in holding that the result of the examination in so far as the same pertained to 'A' series question paper was vitiated. This was bound to affect the result of the entire examination qua every candidate whether or not he was a party to the proceedings. It also goes without saying that if the result was vitiated by the application of a wrong key, any appointment made on the basis thereof would also be rendered unsustainable. The High Court was, in that view, entitled to mould the relief prayed for in the writ petition and issue directions considered necessary not only to maintain the purity of the selection process but also to (Uploaded on 17/02/2026 at 06:08:59 PM) (Downloaded on 17/02/2026 at 08:55:12 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:6524] (34 of 34) [CW-1439/2026] ensure that no candidate earned an undeserved advantage over others by application of an erroneous key.
Supreme Court of India Cites 55 - Cited by 995 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

The Silppi Constructions Contractors vs Union Of India on 21 June, 2019

20. The essence of the law laid down in the judgments referred to above is the exercise of restraint and caution; the need for overwhelming public interest to justify judicial intervention in matters of contract involving the state instrumentalities; the courts should give way to the opinion of the experts unless the decision is totally arbitrary or unreasonable; the court does not sit like a court of appeal over the appropriate authority; the court must realise that the authority floating the tender is the best judge of its requirements and, therefore, the court's interference should be minimal.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 312 - D Gupta - Full Document

M/S N.G. Projects Limited vs M/S Vinod Kumar Jain on 21 March, 2022

5.2 Further, reliance was placed on observations recorded in the case of N.G. Projects Limited Vs. Vinod Kumar Jain; (2022) 6 SCC 127 wherein the Apex Court cautioned that writ court should refrain itself from imposing its decision over the decision of employer as to whether or not to accept the bid of a bidder, more particularly when technical issues are involved. It was further observed that even if court finds that there is total arbitrariness or that the tender has been granted in a malafide manner, still the Court should refrain from interfering in the grant of tender but instead relegate the parties to seek damages for the wrongful exclusion rather than to injunct the execution of the contract as such injunction or interference in the tender leads to additional costs on the State and is also against public interest. Therefore, the State and its citizens suffer twice, firstly by paying escalation costs and secondly, by being deprived of the infrastructure for which the present day governments are expected to work.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 183 - H Gupta - Full Document

State Of Bihar Etc. Etc vs Kripalu Shanker Etc. Etc on 28 April, 1987

87. The above observations of this Court fortify our view that once a decision is made, all opinions and deliberations pertaining to the said decision in the internal file-notings become a part of the process by which the decision is arrived at, and can be looked into for the (Uploaded on 17/02/2026 at 06:08:59 PM) (Downloaded on 17/02/2026 at 08:55:11 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:6524] (23 of 34) [CW-1439/2026] purposes of judicial review. In other words, any internal discussions or notings that have been approved and formalized into a decision by an authority can be examined to ascertain the reasons and purposes behind such decisions for the overall judicial review of such decision-making process and whether it conforms to the principles enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 153 - V Khalid - Full Document
1   2 3 Next