Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.30 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 60 in The Rajasthan Housing Board Act, 1970 [Entire Act]
Raunaq International Ltd vs I.V R. Construction Ltd. And Ors on 9 December, 1998
In Raunaq International Ltd. v. I.V.R. Construction
Ltd. 1999 (1) SCC 492 it was observed that the award of
a contract, whether it is by a private party or by a public
body or the State, is essentially a commercial transaction.
In arriving at a commercial decision, considerations
which are of paramount importance are commercial
considerations, which would include, inter alia, the price
at which the party is willing to work, whether the goods
or services offered are of the requisite specifications and
whether the person tendering is of ability to deliver the
goods or services as per specifications.
Laxmikant & Ors vs Satyawan & Ors on 19 March, 1996
6. The auction notice dated 3.2.2002 contained a condition to the
effect that the Chairman of the Housing Board shall have the final
authority regarding acceptance of the bid. The second auction notice
issued on 19.2.2002 mentioned that the conditions of the auction will
be same as mentioned in the earlier auction notice. In view of this
condition in auction notice it is obvious that a person who had made
the highest bid in the auction did not acquire any right to have the
auction concluded in his favour until the Chairman of the Housing
Board had passed an order to that effect. Of course the Chairman of
the Housing Board could not exercise his power in an arbitrary
manner but so long as an order regarding final acceptance of the bid
had not been passed by the Chairman, the highest bidder acquired no
vested right to have the auction concluded in his favour and the
auction proceedings could always be cancelled. What are the rights of
an auction bidder has been considered in several decisions of this
Court. However, we will refer to only one such decision, viz.,
Laxmikant vs. Satyawan 1996 (4) SCC 208 which is almost identical
on facts as it related to auction of a plot by Nagpur Improvement
Trust. The auction notice in this case contained a condition that the
acceptance of the highest bid shall depend upon the Board of Trustees
and further the person making the highest bid shall have no right to
take back his bid and the decision of the Chairman of the Board of
Trustees regarding acceptance or rejection of the bid shall be binding
on the said person. After taking note of the aforesaid conditions it
was held:-
Article 12 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Air India vs Cochin International Airport Ltd on 31 January, 2000
8. The sale of plots by the Rajasthan Housing Board by means of
an auction is essentially a commercial transaction. Even if some
defect was found in the ultimate decision resulting in cancellation of
the auction, the court should exercise its discretionary power under
Article 226 of the Constitution with great care and caution and should
exercise it only in furtherance of public interest. The court should
always keep the larger public interest in mind in order to decide
whether it should interfere with the decision of the authority. In the
present case there was enough material before the State Government
to show that in the past plots in the area had fetched a price of
Rs.10,000/- per square meter and the highest bid made by the
respondent in the present case was nearly half, i.e., Rs.5750/- per
square meter, which clearly indicated that the auction had not been
conducted in a fair manner. If in such a case the State Government
took a decision to disapprove the auction held and issued a direction
for holding of a fresh auction, obviously the said decision was taken
in larger public interest. In these circumstances there was absolutely
no occasion for the High Court to entertain the writ petition and issue
any direction in favour of the contesting respondent. The orders
passed by the learned single Judge on 4.8.2004 and the order passed
by the Division Bench of the High Court on 23.9.2004 are clearly
erroneous in law and are liable to be set aside.
State Of Orissa And Ors vs Harinarayan Jaiswal And Ors on 14 March, 1972
"From a bare reference to the aforesaid conditions, it is
apparent and explicit that even if the public auction had
been completed and the respondent was the highest
bidder, no right had accrued to him till the confirmation
letter had been issued to him. The conditions of the
auction clearly conceived and contemplated that the
acceptance of the highest bid by the Board of Trustees
was a must and the Trust reserved the right to itself to
reject the highest or any bid. This Court has examined
the right of the highest bidder at public auctions in the
cases of Trilochan Mishra, etc. v. State of Orissa (1971) 3
SCC 153, State of Orissa v. Harinarayan Jaiswal (1972) 2
SCC 36, Union of India v. Mis.
M/S Master Marine Services Pvt. Ltd vs Metcalfe & Hodgkinson Pvt. Ltd. & Anr on 19 April, 2005
11. It was observed that the principles of judicial review
would apply to the exercise of contractual powers by
Government bodies in order to prevent arbitrariness or
favouritism. However, it must be clearly stated that there
are inherent limitations in exercise of that power of
judicial review. Government is the guardian of the
finances of the State. It is expected to protect the
financial interest of the State. The right to refuse the
lowest or any other tender is always available to the
Government. But, the principles laid down in Article 14
of the Constitution have to be kept in view while
accepting or refusing a tender. There can be no question
of infringement of Article 14 if the Government tries to
get the best person or the best quotation. The right to
choose cannot be considered to be an arbitrary power. Of
course, if the said power is exercised for any collateral
purpose the exercise of that power will be struck down.
(See para 85 of the reports, SCC para 70)
1