Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.52 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
M/S N.G. Projects Limited vs M/S Vinod Kumar Jain on 21 March, 2022
30. He submitted that, in view of the decision of this Court in, N.G.
Projects Limited v. Vinod Kumar Jain and Others, reported in (2022) 6 SCC
127, the writ court should refrain itself from imposing its decision over the
decision of the employer as to whether to accept the bid of a tenderer and that
contract of public service should not be interfered with lightly. The injunction
or interference in the Tender leads to additional costs on the State and is also
against public interest.
Raunaq International Ltd vs I.V R. Construction Ltd. And Ors on 9 December, 1998
In Raunaq International Ltd. (supra), this Court
observed as under:
Poddar Steel Corporation vs Ganesh Engineering Works And Others on 6 May, 1991
34. Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, the learned Senior counsel, appearing for
TATA Motors vehemently submitted that the contract awarded by BEST to
EVEY is per se illegal. The learned Senior counsel argued that the acceptance
of the EVEY’s revised Annexure Y after the expiry of the bid submission end
date and technical bid opening date is contrary to the Tender conditions.
Clause 16 of Schedule I (Invitation for Proposal) of the Tender prohibits any
addition, correction or submission of document after the technical bid
opening. However, the same was not followed and by allowing a bidder to
14
correct errors at a later stage may lead to unequal treatment of bidders. The
decisions of this Court in Poddar Steel Corporation v. Ganesh Engineering
Works and Others, reported in (1991) 3 SCC 273 (Para 6); W.B. State
Electricity Board (supra) (Paras 27 and 28), were relied upon to substantiate
the aforesaid contention.
Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd vs Commissioner Ulhasnagar Municipal ... on 8 May, 2000
35. He submitted that the actions of BEST could be termed as arbitrary,
discriminatory, unfair, and that his client has locus to challenge the same as no
legitimacy should be granted to tender processes tainted with malice. The
learned Senior counsel relied upon the decision of this Court in Monarch
Infrastructure (P) Ltd v. Commissioner, Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation
and Others, reported in (2000) 5 SCC 287 (Paras 10 and 14); Meerut
Development Authority v. Association of Management Studies and Another,
reported in (2009) 6 SCC 171 (Paras 27, 28, 45 and 76); Maa Binda Express
Carrier and Another v. North-East Frontier Railway and Others, reported in
(2014) 3 SCC 760 (Paras 8, 9 and 12) to fortify the submission.
Meerut Devt.Authority vs Association Of Management Studies & Anr on 17 April, 2009
35. He submitted that the actions of BEST could be termed as arbitrary,
discriminatory, unfair, and that his client has locus to challenge the same as no
legitimacy should be granted to tender processes tainted with malice. The
learned Senior counsel relied upon the decision of this Court in Monarch
Infrastructure (P) Ltd v. Commissioner, Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation
and Others, reported in (2000) 5 SCC 287 (Paras 10 and 14); Meerut
Development Authority v. Association of Management Studies and Another,
reported in (2009) 6 SCC 171 (Paras 27, 28, 45 and 76); Maa Binda Express
Carrier and Another v. North-East Frontier Railway and Others, reported in
(2014) 3 SCC 760 (Paras 8, 9 and 12) to fortify the submission.
Maa Binda Express Carrier And Anr vs Northeast Frontier Railway And Ors on 29 November, 2013
35. He submitted that the actions of BEST could be termed as arbitrary,
discriminatory, unfair, and that his client has locus to challenge the same as no
legitimacy should be granted to tender processes tainted with malice. The
learned Senior counsel relied upon the decision of this Court in Monarch
Infrastructure (P) Ltd v. Commissioner, Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation
and Others, reported in (2000) 5 SCC 287 (Paras 10 and 14); Meerut
Development Authority v. Association of Management Studies and Another,
reported in (2009) 6 SCC 171 (Paras 27, 28, 45 and 76); Maa Binda Express
Carrier and Another v. North-East Frontier Railway and Others, reported in
(2014) 3 SCC 760 (Paras 8, 9 and 12) to fortify the submission.
The Silppi Constructions Contractors vs Union Of India on 21 June, 2019
49. It is not in dispute that the first and the foremost requirement of the
Tender was the prescribed operating range of the single decker buses which
would operate for around and average of 200 Kms in a single charge in
“actual conditions” with 80% SoC without any interruption. Then materials
on record would indicate that the TATA Motors in its bid deviated from this
requirement and had informed BEST that it could carry the operating range in
the “standard test conditions” which was not in accordance with the Tender
conditions. The High Court has rightly observed in its impugned judgment
that the bid of the TATA Motors failed to comply with the said clause. TATA
Motors deviated from the material and the essential term of the Tender. It may
not be out of place to state at this stage that it is only TATA Motors who
deviated from the condition referred to above. However, we are of the view
that the High Court having once declared TATA Motors as “non-responsive”
and having stood disqualified from the Tender process should not have entered
into the fray of investigating into the decision of BEST to declare EVEY as
the eligible bidder. We are saying so because the High Court was not
exercising its writ jurisdiction in public interest. The High Court looked into a
petition filed by a party trying to assert its own rights.
Association Of Registration Plates vs Union Of India & Ors on 30 November, 2004
52. Ordinarily, a writ court should refrain itself from imposing its decision
over the decision of the employer as to whether or not to accept the bid of a
tenderer unless something very gross or palpable is pointed out. The court
ordinarily should not interfere in matters relating to tender or contract. To set
at naught the entire tender process at the stage when the contract is well
underway, would not be in public interest. Initiating a fresh tender process at
this stage may consume lot of time and also loss to the public exchequer to the
23
tune of crores of rupees. The financial burden/implications on the public
exchequer that the State may have to meet with if the Court directs issue of a
fresh tender notice, should be one of the guiding factors that the Court should
keep in mind. This is evident from a three-Judge Bench decision of this Court
in Association of Registration Plates v. Union of India and Others, reported
in (2005) 1 SCC 679.