Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (1.35 seconds)The Haryana Minerals (Vesting of Rights) Act, 1973
State Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors. vs Vijay Bahadur Singh And Ors. on 23 March, 1982
In Vijay Bahadur
Singh's case the Court further observed that the power
conferred on the Government by the act to refuse to accept
the higher bid, cannot be confined to inadequacy of bid
only. There may be variety of other good and sufficient
reasons to reject the same. The appellant has no grievance
that even though his was the highest bid, the same was not
accepted nor Mr. Sorabjee on his behalf contends that the
highest bid of the appellant was rejected on grounds which
are either irrelevant or extraneous. This aspect therefore
need not detain us any more.
State Of Orissa And Ors vs Harinarayan Jaiswal And Ors on 14 March, 1972
The right of the State
Government not to confirm the bid as also its action of not
confirming the highest bid of the appellant is not
questioned. Therefore, various decisions laying down that
the Government is not bound to accept the highest bid to
which our attention was drawn
552
by Mr. P.P. Rao, learned counsel for the fourth respondent
are of no relevance in this case. This Court in Trilochan
Mishra etc. v. State of Orissa & Ors. State of Uttar
Pradesh & Ors. v. Vijay Bahadur Singh & Ors. and State of
Orissa & Ors. v. Harinarayan Jaiswal & Ors. held that the
Government is under no obligation to accept the highest bid
and that no rights accrue to the bidder merely because his
bid happened to be the highest. The Court also observed that
the Government had the right, for good and sufficient
reason, not to accept the highest bid but even to prefer a
tenderer other than the highest bidder.
Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs The International Airport Authority Of ... on 4 May, 1979
In this
connection we may profitably refer to Ramana Dayaram Shetty
v. The International Airport Authority of India and Ors in
which Bhagwati, J. speaking for the Court observed:
Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy vs State Of Jammu And Kashmir & Another on 9 May, 1980
At another place it was observed that the Government
must act in public interest, it cannot act arbitrarily or
without reason and if it does so, its action would be liable
to be invalidated. It was further observed that the object
of holding the auction is generally to raise the highest
revenue. The Government is entitled to reject the highest
bid if it thought that the price offered was inadequate. But
after rejecting the offer, it is obligatory upon the
Government to act fairly and at any rate it cannot act
arbitrarily. Following this line of thought, in Kasturi Lal
Lakshmi Reddy v. State of Jammu & Kashmir and Anr. while
upholding the order of the Government of Jammu & Kashmir
dated April 27, 1979 allotting to the second respondent 10
to 12 lacs blazes annually for extraction of resin from the
inaccessible chir forests in Poonch, Reasi and Ramban
Divisions of the State for a period of 10 years on the terms
and conditions set out in the order, observed as under:
K. N. Guruswamy vs The State Of Mysore And Others on 24 May, 1954
In the absence of it, the
approach must be as clearly laid down by the Constitution
Bench of this Court in K.N. Guruswamy v. The State of Mysore
& Ors. In that case, the appellant and the fourth respondent
were rival liquor contractors for the sale of the liquor
contract for the year 1953-54 in the State of Mysore. The
contract was auctioned by the Deputy Commissioner under the
authority conferred upon him by the Mysore Excise Act, 1901.
The appellant's bid was the highest and the contract was
knocked down in his favour subject to formal confirmation by
the Deputy Commissioner. The fourth respondent was present
at the auction but did not bid. Instead of that he went
direct to the Excise Commissioner and made a higher offer.
The Excise Commissioner cancelled the sale of favour of the
appellant and directed the Deputy Commissioner to take
action under the relevant rule. The latter accepted the
tender of the respondent. The appellant moved the High Court
for a writ of mandamus which was dismissed. In appeal by the
certificate, it was urged on behalf of the State that the
Deputy Commissioner acted within the ambit of his powers
under the relevant rule which gave him an absolute
discretion either to re-auction or to act otherwise and no
fetters are placed upon the 'otherwise' method. The court
negatived this contention observing that arbitrary
improvisation of an ad hoc procedure to meet the exigencies
of a particular case is ruled out. Therefore, the grant of
the contract to the fourth respondent was wrong. Repelling
the contention that a writ petition at the instance of the
appellant would not be maintainable, the Constitution Bench
observed as under:
Assistant Collector Of Central Excise vs Jainson Hosiery Industries on 27 July, 1979
Before we deal with the larger issue, let me put out of
the way the contention that found favour with the High Court
in rejecting the writ petition. The learned Single Judge as
well as the Division Bench recalling the observations of
this Court in Assistant Collector of Central Excise v.
Jainson Hosiery Industries rejected the writ petition
observing that 'the petitioner who invokes the extraordinary
jurisdiction of the court under Art. 226 of the Constitution
must have exhausted the normal statutory remedies available
to him'. We remain unimpressed. Ordinarily it is true that
the court has imposed a restraint in its own wisdom on its
exercise of jurisdiction under Art. 226 where the party
invoking the jurisdiction has an effective, adequate
alternative remedy. More often, it has been expressly stated
that the rule which requires the exhaustion of alternative
remedies is a rule of convenience and discretion rather than
rule of law. At any rate it does not oust the jurisdiction
of the Court.
State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Shiv Charan Sharma And Ors. on 6 April, 1981
In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Shiv Charan Sharma & Ors.
etc., this court observed that public auction with open
participation and a reserved price guarantees public
interest being fully subserved.