Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.48 seconds)

West Bengal State Electricity Board vs Patel Engineering Co. Ltd. & Ors on 15 January, 2001

In W.B. SEB v. Patel Engg. Co. Ltd., (2001) 2 SCC 451, the Supreme Court emphasised on maintaining sanctity and integrity of process of tender/bid and also award of a contract and observed ".........adherence to the instructions cannot be given a go-bye by branding it as a pedantic approach otherwise it will encourage and provide scope for discrimination, arbitrariness and favouritism which are totally opposed to the Rule of law and our Constitutional values. The very purpose of issuing Rules/instructions is to ensure their enforcement lest the Rule of law should be a casualty. Relaxation or waiver of a rule or condition, unless so provided under ITB, by the State or its agencies (the appellant) in favour of one bidder would create justifiable doubts in the minds of other bidders, would impair the rule of transparency and fairness and provide room for manipulation to suit the whims of the State agencies in picking and choosing a bidder for awarding contracts as in the case of distributing bounty or charity. In our view such approach should always be avoided. Where power to relax or waive a rule or a condition exists under the Rules, it has to be done strictly in compliance with the Rules."
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 342 - S S Quadri - Full Document

Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs The International Airport Authority Of ... on 4 May, 1979

"Now, there can be no doubt that what paragraph (1) of the notice prescribed was a condition of eligibility which was required to be satisfied by every person submitting a tender. The condition of eligibility was that the person submitting a tender must be conducting or running a registered 2nd class hotel or restaurant and he must have at least 5 years' experience as such and if he did not satisfy this condition of eligibility his tender would not be eligible for consideration. This was the standard or norm of eligibility laid down by the 1 st respondent and since the 4th respondents did not satisfy this standard or norm, it was not competent to the 1st respondent to entertain the tender of the 4th respondents. It is a well settled rule of administrative law that an executive authority must be rigorously held to the standards by which it professes its actions to be judged and it must scrupulously observe those Standards on pain of invalidation of an act in violation of them.
Supreme Court of India Cites 47 - Cited by 2519 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document
1