Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (0.33 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Tata Cellular vs Union Of India on 26 July, 1994
The principles which have to be applied in
judicial review of administrative decisions, especially
those relating to acceptance of tender and award of
contract, have been considered in great detail by a
three-Judge Bench in Tata Cellular v. Union of
India [(1994) 6 SCC 651] . 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.
Sterling Computers Limited Etc vs M & N Publications Limited And Ors on 12 January, 1993
In Sterling Computers Ltd. v. M&N Publications
Ltd. [(1993) 1 SCC 445 : AIR 1996 SC 51] it was held
as under: (SCC p. 458, paras 18-19)
'18. While exercising the power of judicial review,
in respect of contracts entered into on behalf of
the State, the court is concerned primarily as to
whether there has been any infirmity in the
"decision-making process". ... By way of judicial
review the court cannot examine the details of
the terms of the contract which have been
entered into by the public bodies or the State.
Court have inherent limitations on the scope of
any such enquiry. But at the same time ... the
courts can certainly examine whether "decision-
making process" was reasonable, rational, not
arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution.
Rajasthan Housing Board And Another vs G.S. Investments And Another on 31 October, 2006
49. Refuting the said argument of the learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner, Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 4
and 6, has submitted that merely because the petitioner was found L-1, it
has no vested right to be awarded the work. Learned counsel has put
reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Rajasthan Housing Board Vs. G.S. Investments & Another
reported in (2007) 1 SCC 477, the relevant paragraphs of which are
quoted hereunder:-
Laxmikant & Ors vs Satyawan & Ors on 19 March, 1996
"8. 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 v. Satyawan [(1996) 4 SCC 208] which is
almost identical on facts as it related to auction of a plot by
the 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: (SCC pp. 211-
12, para 4)
"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
Trilochan Mishra Etc vs State Of Orissa & Ors on 21 January, 1971
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 Trilochan
Mishra v. State of Orissa [(1971) 3 SCC 153] , State of
Orissa v. Harinarayan Jaiswal [(1972) 2 SCC 36] , Union of
India v. Bhim Sen Walaiti Ram [(1969) 3 SCC 146]
and State of U.P. v. Vijay Bahadur Singh [(1982) 2 SCC
365] . It has been repeatedly pointed out that State or
the authority which can be held to be State within the
meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution is not bound to
accept the highest tender or bid. The acceptance of the
highest bid is subject to the conditions of holding the
public auction and the right of the highest bidder has to
be examined in context with the different conditions
under which such auction has been held. In the present
case no right had accrued to the respondent either on the
basis of the statutory provision under Rule 4(3) or under
the conditions of the sale which had been notified before
the public auction was held."
State Of Orissa And Ors vs Harinarayan Jaiswal And Ors on 14 March, 1972
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 Trilochan
Mishra v. State of Orissa [(1971) 3 SCC 153] , State of
Orissa v. Harinarayan Jaiswal [(1972) 2 SCC 36] , Union of
India v. Bhim Sen Walaiti Ram [(1969) 3 SCC 146]
and State of U.P. v. Vijay Bahadur Singh [(1982) 2 SCC
365] . It has been repeatedly pointed out that State or
the authority which can be held to be State within the
meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution is not bound to
accept the highest tender or bid. The acceptance of the
highest bid is subject to the conditions of holding the
public auction and the right of the highest bidder has to
be examined in context with the different conditions
under which such auction has been held. In the present
case no right had accrued to the respondent either on the
basis of the statutory provision under Rule 4(3) or under
the conditions of the sale which had been notified before
the public auction was held."
M/S. Vinod Kumar Jain vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 14 January, 2020
36. Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, has relied
upon the judgment of this court rendered in the case of Vinod Kumar
Jain Vs. State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary,
Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand and
Others reported in 2020 SCC OnLine Jhar 182 on the point of
essentiality or non-essentiality of any condition of the tender document
and power of the tender disposal committee to deviate from it. Learned
Senior Counsel has submitted that the tender disposal committee of the
respondent-DMC while issuing show cause notice to the petitioner had
treated the said condition of non-supply of litigation history by the
petitioner as a non-essential condition of the tender and thus after
receiving sufficient reply from the petitioner, the tender disposal
committee ought not to have rejected its technical bid.
State Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors. vs Vijay Bahadur Singh And Ors. on 23 March, 1982
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 Trilochan
Mishra v. State of Orissa [(1971) 3 SCC 153] , State of
Orissa v. Harinarayan Jaiswal [(1972) 2 SCC 36] , Union of
India v. Bhim Sen Walaiti Ram [(1969) 3 SCC 146]
and State of U.P. v. Vijay Bahadur Singh [(1982) 2 SCC
365] . It has been repeatedly pointed out that State or
the authority which can be held to be State within the
meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution is not bound to
accept the highest tender or bid. The acceptance of the
highest bid is subject to the conditions of holding the
public auction and the right of the highest bidder has to
be examined in context with the different conditions
under which such auction has been held. In the present
case no right had accrued to the respondent either on the
basis of the statutory provision under Rule 4(3) or under
the conditions of the sale which had been notified before
the public auction was held."