Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.32 seconds)Abl International Ltd. & Anr vs Export Credit Guarantee Corportion Of ... on 18 December, 2003
In support of the proposition that under these circumstances the Court in judicial review is competent to set aside an administrative action, learne counsel has placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Union of India and Others V. Dinesh Engineering Corporation and Another and ABL International Ltd. and Anr V. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Limited and Ors. T 2003 (10) SC 300. Reliance is also placed on another decision of the Apex Court in Food Corporation of India V. M/s. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries to contend that the petitioner having successfully complied with all the tender conditions and the respondents being bound to open and consider the sole tender of the petitioner in terms of Clause 3.3.1, the petitioner had not only a legitimate expectation of getting the contract, in fact a vested right had accrued in their favor to ge the same.
Tata Cellular vs Union Of India on 26 July, 1994
12. Adverting to the facts in hand, we find some substance in the submission of learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the respondents were bound to scrupulously adhere to the conditions stipulated in the NIT and in terms of Clause 3.3.1 thereof; petitioner's financial bid ought to have been opened and considered despite the fact that they were the only bidder whose technical bid was found to be responsive. We are, therefore, unable to accept the stand of the respondents that they are not bound to scrupulously comply with the conditions contained in the Commercial Manual as the same is meant for departmental guidance only. Such a stand would not only impair the sanctity and integrity of the process of tender, which is so essential to be maintaned, non-adherence to the tender conditions would encourage and provide scope for discrimination, arbitrariness and favoritism, which are totally opposed to rule of law and our Constitutional values. Deviation from any essential conditions of the NIT would provide room for manipulation to suit the whims of the State agencies in picking and choosing a bidder for awarding contracts. Such an approach cannot be permitted. Nevertheless, these observations in favor of the petitioner do not conclude the is se at hand. The real question for determination is whether the decision of the respondents to bury the NIT dated 30 January 2004 and re-invite tenders can be said to be arbitrary, discriminatory or actuated by mala fides or a deliberate act to favor Chabi and, therefore, liable to set aside when tested on the touchstone of the principles enunciated in Tata Cellular (supra) and subsequent pronouncements ?
Directorate Of Education & Ors vs Educomp Datamatics Ltd. & Ors on 10 March, 2004
11. The same principles have been reiterated by the Apex court in Directorate of Education and Others Vs. Educomp Datamatics Ltd. and Others, . While observing that in exercise of their power of judicial review it is open to the Courts to scrutinize the award of contracts by the government or its agencies to prevent arbitrariness or favoritism, their Lordships have said that the Courts would interfere with the administrative policy decision only if it is arbitrary, discriminatory, mala fide or actuated by bias.
Union Of India And Ors vs Hindustan Development Corpn. And Ors on 15 April, 1993
16. The doctrine of ''legitimate expectation'' was elaborately considered by the Supreme Court in Union of India V. Hindustan Development Corporation . Inter alia, observing that legitimate expectation is neither the same thing as anticipation; nor is it different from a mere wish to desire or hope; nor is it a claim or demand based on a right and a mere disappointment would not give rise to a legal consequence, their Lordships said that the principle of legitimate expectation did not involve any crystallized right. The protection of such legitimate expectation did not require the fulfilllment of the expectation where an overriding public interest required otherwise. Finally, it was held that the Court would interfere only if the decision taken by the authority was arbitrary, unreasonable or not taken in public interest. The Court must follow an objective method by which the decision making authority is given the full range of choice which the legislature is presumed to have intended. f the decision is reached fairly and objectively, it cannot be interfered with on the ground of procedural fairness.
Smt. S. R. Venkataraman vs Union Of India & Anr on 2 November, 1978
Thus, the decision of the Apex Court in Venkatraman's case (supra) is of no avail to the petitioner.
Union Of India & Ors vs Dinesh Engineering Corpn. & Anr on 18 September, 2001
In support of the proposition that under these circumstances the Court in judicial review is competent to set aside an administrative action, learne counsel has placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Union of India and Others V. Dinesh Engineering Corporation and Another and ABL International Ltd. and Anr V. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Limited and Ors. T 2003 (10) SC 300. Reliance is also placed on another decision of the Apex Court in Food Corporation of India V. M/s. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries to contend that the petitioner having successfully complied with all the tender conditions and the respondents being bound to open and consider the sole tender of the petitioner in terms of Clause 3.3.1, the petitioner had not only a legitimate expectation of getting the contract, in fact a vested right had accrued in their favor to ge the same.
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
1