M/S Michigan Rubber(I) Ltd vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 17 August, 2012
d) The submission of learned counsel for the
petitioner that the tender works ought to have been split
and separate tenders ought to have been called for so that
even small & sundry contractors could participate in the
tender process is bit difficult to countenance; learned AAG
appearing for the respondents rightly repels the said
submission placing reliance on the decision of the Apex
Court in MICHIGAN RUBBER (I) INDIA LIMITED VS.
STATE & OTHERS, (2012) 8 SCC 216; he is more than
justified in support of his contention that what all works
a tender should comprise, and whether tender should be
in plural offers or one common offer for all the works, are a
matter that lie within the discretion of the authorities
concerned and that this court cannot run a race of
opinions with such agencies; an argument to the contrary
7
would amount to the judicial organ of the State over-
stepping its limits and encroaching upon the domain of the
executive; this offends the doctrine of separation of powers
vide SAHIB RAM JAWAYA KAPOOR vs. STATE OF
PUNJAB, AIR 1955 SC 549.