Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.19 seconds)Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Companies Act, 1956
Directorate Of Education & Ors vs Educomp Datamatics Ltd. & Ors on 10 March, 2004
In DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION VS. EDUCOMP
DATAMATICS LTD. - AIR 2004 SC 1962, the Apex Court has
held that the terms of invitation to tender are not open to judicial
scrutiny the same being in the realm of contract. The Government
must have free hand in setting the terms of the tender. It must have
reasonable play in its joints as a necessary concomitant for an
administrative body in an administrative sphere. The Courts would
interfere with the administrative policy decision only if it is
arbitrary, discriminatory, malafide or actuated by bias. The Courts
cannot strike down the terms of tender prescribed by the
Government because it feels that some other terms in the tender
38
would have been fair, wiser or logical.
Meerut Devt.Authority vs Association Of Management Studies & Anr on 17 April, 2009
15. Sri Vivek S. Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioners in some of the petitions submits that in the evaluation of
the technical bid, the petitioners have been qualified. However, in
the next stage of evaluation under Clause B(9), the tenderers were
not qualified because of the number of tank trucks owned by them.
Clause B(9) of the tender is itself arbitrary. Relying on the decision
of the Apex Court in MEERUT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
VS. ASSOCIATION OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES AND
30
ANOTHER - (2009) 6 SCC 171, he submits that though the terms
of the invitation tender cannot be open to judicial scrutiny because
the invitation to tender is in the realm of contract, a limited judicial
review may be available in cases where it is established that the
terms of the invitation to tender were so tailor-made to suit the
convenience of any particular person with a view to eliminate all
others from participating in the bidding process.
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Tata Cellular vs Union Of India on 26 July, 1994
23. It is settled that the Courts can scrutinise the award of
contract by the Government or its agencies in exercise of its powers
35
of judicial review to prevent arbitrariness or favouritism. However,
there are inherent limitations in the exercise of power of judicial
review in such matters. The Apex Court in TATA CELLULAR VS.
UNION OF INDIA - (1994) 6 SCC 651 has laid down the
principles with regard to the power of judicial review by the
Courts. They are as under:
1