Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.92 seconds)Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Tata Cellular vs Union Of India on 26 July, 1994
9. I have considered the submissions made by
learned counsel on both the sides and have perused the
record. 'TATA CELLULAR VS. UNION OF INDIA
(1994) 6 SCC 651: (AIR 1996 SC 11), the Supreme
Court while dealing with the scope of judicial power of
review held that it would apply to exercise of
contractual powers by Government bodies in order to
prevent arbitrariness or favoritism. It has been held
that the ground upon which the administrative action is
subject to control by judicial review is on the grounds of
illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety. It has
11
further been held that terms of the invitation to tender
are not open to judicial scrutiny because invitation to
tender is in the realm of contract and more often than
not, such decision are made qualitatively by experts. It
has further been held that the Government must have
freedom of contract. In other words, a fair play in the
joints is a necessary concomitant for an administrative
body functioning in an administrative sphere or quasi-
administrative body functioning in an administrative
sphere or quasi-administrative sphere. However, the
decision must not only be tested by the application of
Wednesbury principle of reasonableness but must be
free from arbitrariness not affected by bias or actuated
by mala fides.
Directorate Of Education & Ors vs Educomp Datamatics Ltd. & Ors on 10 March, 2004
10. The principles regarding award of contract
were again reiterated by the Supreme Court in 'IN
DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION VS. EDUCOMP
DATAMATICS LIMITED', (2004) 4 SCC 19: (AIR
2004 SC 1962) and it was held that Government must
12
have a free had in setting the terms of tender and the
Courts cannot strike down the terms of tender
prescribed by the Government because it feels that
some other terms in the tender would have been fairer,
wiser or more logical. The courts can interfere only if
the policy decision is arbitrary, discriminatory or
actuated by malice.
Association Of Registration Plates vs Union Of India & Ors on 30 November, 2004
In 'SHAMNIT UTSCH INDIA
PRIVATE LIMITED VS. WEST BENGAL TRANSPORT
INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
LIMITED', (2010) 6 SCC 303: (2010 AIR SCW
3974), the Supreme Court while taking note of the law
laid down in ASSN. OF REGISTRATION PLATES VS.
UNION OF INDIA', (2005) 1 SCC 679: (AIR 2005
SC 469), reiterated that State Government has the
right to get the right and most competent person and in
the matter of formulating conditions of tender
documents, unless the action of tendering authority is
found to be malicious and is a misuse of statutory
powers, the tender conditions are unassailable.
Consortium Of: M/S Siemens ... vs Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd on 31 March, 2015
In
'SIEMENS AKTIENGESELEISCHAFT AND SEIMENS
13
LIMITED VS. DELHI AND SEIMENS LIMITED VS.
DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED AND
OTEHRS', (2014) 11 SCC 288 : (AIR 2014 SC
1483), it was held that tenders floated by the
Government are amenable to judicial review only in
order to prevent arbitrariness and favoritism and protect
the financial interest of the State and the public
interest.
1