Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.27 seconds)Union Of India & Ors vs Dinesh Engineering Corpn. & Anr on 18 September, 2001
After taking into consideration the observations made in the matter of Sterling Computers Ltd., the Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India and Ors. v. Dinesh Engineering Corporation and Anr., observed that public authority even in contractual matters should not have unfettered discretion and in contracts having commercial element even though some extra discretion is to be conceded in such authorities, they are bound to follow the norms recognised by Courts while dealing with public property. This requirement is necessary to avoid unreasonable and arbitrary decisions being taken by public authorities whose actions are amenable to judicial review. The Supreme Court further observed that merely because the authority has certain elbow room available for use of discretion in accepting offer in contracts, the same will have to be done within the four corners of the requirements of law, especially Article 14 of the Constitution.
State Of Orissa And Ors vs Harinarayan Jaiswal And Ors on 14 March, 1972
14. The following observations from the case of State of Orissa v. Harinarayan Jaiswai, (1972) 2 SCC 1816, were quoted with approval :
Ram And Shyam Company vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 8 May, 1985
In the matter of Ram & Shyam Company v. State of Haryana and Ors., 1985 Vol. 3 SCC 267, the Supreme Court observed that in administrative action, the authority must act fairly, i.e., in accordance with the principles of natural justice, variously described as fair play in action. The Supreme Court observed, "the Government has the right not to accept the highest bid and even to prefer a tender other than the highest bidder, if there exists good and sufficient reasons, such as, the highest bid not representing the market price or need to give the concession to a weaker section of the society who could not outbid the highest bidder". In the said matter the Supreme Court found that there was no grievance relating to rejection of the highest bid on irrelevant or extraneous grounds, but the submission was that after rejecting the offer, it is obligatory upon the Government to act fairly and at any rate it could not act arbitrarily. Then the Apex Court observed "that the Government is not free like an ordinary individual, in selecting recipient for its largesse. It need not deal with any one but if it does so, it must do so fairly and without exercising absolute and unfettered discretion and without unfair procedure".
Food Corporation Of India vs Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries on 11 November, 1992
In the matter of Food Corporation of India v. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries, 1993 AIR SCW 1509, the question posed before the Supreme Court for consideration was whether after rejecting all the tenders the authority was entitled to resort to negotiations with all tenderers or not and was entitled to accept significantly higher amount than the quoted in highest tender. The Supreme Court answered the question in affirmative saying that such a procedure was not unknown to the contractors, in the said matters the Supreme Court made the following observations :
Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd vs Commissioner Ulhasnagar Municipal ... on 8 May, 2000
27. It would be useful to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation and Ors., V (2000) SLT 244=2000 AIR SCW 2050. In the said matter the Municipal Corporation issued a notice inviting tender for appointment of agents for collection of octroi. Challenging Clauses 6(a) and 6(b) of the Tender Booklet as unconstitutional M/s. Millennium Infrastructure (P) Ltd. filed a writ petition in the High Court. The High Court after hearing the parties adjourned the matter but made it clear that there shall be no interim relief except that the Corporation shall not issue work order till further orders. On 23.3.2000 the said petitioner withdrew the aforesaid writ petition. On March 24, 2000 the tenders were opened and an objection was raised that M/s. Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd. did not fulfil the conditions either under Clause 6(a) or Clause 6(b) in spite of which the Commissioner insisted on opening the tenders. The Commissioner informed the parties that Clause 6(a) had been waived of in view of the order made by the Government. The Commissioner allowed M/s. Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd. to furnish a certificate as to Clause 6(b) by Chartered Accountant. The Commissioner proceeded to finalise the tenders on the basis that Clause 6(a) had stood waived or deleted in view of the order of the Government and awarded the contract in favour of M/s. Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd. The said award was challenged by another tenderers. The High Court of Bombay allowed the said writ petition holding that the deletion of Clause 6(a) of the Tender Booklet after offers were received on 23.3.2000 was illegal as the offers had been received on the basis of Clause 6(a) and Clause 6(b) which would define the condition of eligibility. While quashing the award the High Court made it clear that the Municipal Corporation would be at liberty to invite a fresh tender for the purpose of awarding the contract for collection of octroi on terms and conditions which may be prescribed by the Municipal Corporation. The order of the High Court was challenged by M/s. Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd. before the Supreme Court. The observations made by the Supreme
Court in paras 10 and 11 of the said judgment would be of much guidance.
Shri Sitaram Sugar Company Limited & ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 13 March, 1990
27-A. In the matter of Sri Sitaram Sugar Company Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., 1990 (Vol. 3) SCC 223, while considering the matter relating to price fixation, the Supreme Court observed that even if rule of audi altram partem is not attracted, reasonableness and fair play in action must be observed which emanate from the doctrine of natural justice. The law on the subject is very clear. The equals have to be treated equally and, unequal treatment to the equals would suffer with vice of unreasonable discrimination and would never pass the test of reasonableness and right of equality enshrined in the Constitution of India.
Dutta Associates Pvt.Ltd vs Indo Merchatiles Pvt.Ltd & Ors on 18 November, 1996
27-B. In the matter of Dutta Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Indo Mercantiles Pvt. Ltd. and Ors., I (1997) CLT 79 (SC)=1997 (Vol. 1) SCC 53, after receiving the tenders, 'viability range' was determined keeping in view prevailing prices outside the State as most of the rectified spirit had to be procured from outside State. The lowest tenderer then was asked to raise his offer so as to cover within the viability range. The lowest tenderer raised his offer accordingly and the offer was accepted. The Supreme Court observed that whatever procedure the Government proposes to follow in accepting the tender must be clearly stated in the tender notice. The consideration of the tenders and the procedure to be followed in the matter of acceptance of a tender should be transparent, fair and open. While a bonafide error or error of judgment would not certainly matter, any abuse of power for extraneous reasons would expose the authorities concerned, whether it is the Minister or the Commissioner, to appropriate penalties at the hands of the Courts. The Supreme Court found that the tender notice did not specify the 'viability range' nor did it say that only the tenders coming within the viability range will be considered. The Supreme Court also found that the tender notice did not even say that after receiving the tenders, the Commissioner/Government would first determine the viability range and would then call upon the lowest eligible tenders to make a counter-offer. According to the Supreme Court the fairness demanded that the authority should have notified in the tender notice itself the procedure which they proposed to adopt while accepting the tender. The Supreme Court also observed that the action of the State was
bad because the Government called upon the lowest tenderer to make a counter offer to come within the 'viability range' and his revised offer at the higher limit of 'viability range' was accepted. No such opportunity to make a counter offer was given to any other tenderer including the first respondent and this was equally a vitiating factor,
27-C. In the present matter when the Government was of the opinion that it must place the supply offers to some of the tenderers at a particular rate then it could not ignore the other tenderers and was duty-bound to seek acceptance or consent from the present appellant/ petitioner. It would have been altogether a different thing that such an offer for supply was accepted or not by the appellant/petitioner.
Asia Foundation & Construction Ltd vs Trafalgar House Construction (I) Ltd. & ... on 17 December, 1996
27-D. Again in the matter of Asia Foundation and Construction Ltd. v. Trafalgar House Construction (I) Ltd., I (1997) CLT 444 (SC)=1997 (Vol. 1) SCC 738, the Supreme Court observed that the principle of judicial review cannot be denied so far as exercise of contractual powers of Government bodies are concerned, but it is intended to prevent arbitrariness or favouritism and it is exercised in the larger public interest or if it is brought to the notice of the Court that in the matter of award of a contract power has been exercised for any collateral purpose.
Sterling Computers Limited Etc vs M & N Publications Limited And Ors on 12 January, 1993
27-F. The above referred observations made in the matter of Sterling Computers Ltd. v. M & N Publications Ltd., 1993 (Vol.