Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.82 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Tata Cellular vs Union Of India on 26 July, 1994
"9. It is well settled now that the courts can scrutinise the award of
the contracts by the Government or its agencies in exercise of their
powers of judicial review to prevent arbitrariness or favouritism.
However, there are inherent limitations in the exercise of the power
of judicial review in such matters. The point as to the extent of
judicial review permissible in contractual matters while inviting bids
by issuing tenders has been examined in depth by this Court in Tata
Cellular v. Union of India [(1994) 6 SCC 651] . After examining the
entire case-law the following principles have been deduced: (SCC
pp. 687-88, para 94)
"94. The principles deducible from the above are:
Shimnit Utsch India Pvt.Ltd. & Anr vs W.B. Tpt.Infrastructure ... on 12 May, 2010
33. We may advert to third issue, namely, whether the impugned
tender conditions are contrary to the guidelines issued by the Central
Vigilance Commission. It is trite law that terms of invitation to tender
cannot be open to judicial scrutiny because invitation to tender is in the
realm of contract. The State Government has the right to get the right
and most competent person and should have freedom in the matter of
formulating conditions of tender documents, unless the action of
tendering authority is found to be malicious and is a misuse of statutory
powers, the tender conditions are unassailable. [See, Shimnit Utsch
India Private Limited v. West Bengal Transport Infrastructure
Development Corporation Limited, (2010) 6 SCC 303]. Therefore, the
Commissioner Excise has the authority to lay down the terms and
conditions of the Notice Inviting Tender and even if the same are
violative of the guidelines issued by the Central Vigilance Commission,
which even otherwise are directory in nature, the same have no bearing
on the issue involved in this petition. Accordingly, the aforesaid issue is
answered."
Afcons Infrastructure Ltd vs Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. & Anr on 15 September, 2016
The view taken in Afcons [Afcons Infrastructure
Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corpn. Ltd., (2016) 16 SCC 818] was
followed in Montecarlo Ltd. v. NTPC Ltd. [Montecarlo
Ltd. v. NTPC Ltd., (2016) 15 SCC 272] Thus it is apparent that
in contractual matters, the writ courts should not interfere unless
the decision taken is totally arbitrary, perverse or mala fide."
Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs The International Airport Authority Of ... on 4 May, 1979
"7. The law relating to award of a contract by the State, its
corporations and bodies acting as instrumentalities and agencies of
the Government has been settled by the decision of this Court
in Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of
India [(1979) 3 SCC 489] , Fertilizer Corpn. Kamgar Union
(Regd.) v. Union of India [(1981) 1 SCC 568] , CCE v. Dunlop India
Ltd. [(1985) 1 SCC 260 : 1985 SCC (Tax) 75] , Tata
Cellular v. Union of India [(1994) 6 SCC 651] , Ramniklal N.
Bhutta v. State of Maharashtra [(1997) 1 SCC 134] and Raunaq
International Ltd. v. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. [(1999) 1 SCC 492]
The award of a contract, whether it is by a private party or by a
public body or the State, is essentially a commercial transaction. In
arriving at a commercial decision considerations which are
paramount are commercial considerations. The State can choose its
own method to arrive at a decision. It can fix its own terms of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 15-05-2025
13:48:50
11
invitation to tender and that is not open to judicial scrutiny. It can
enter into negotiations before finally deciding to accept one of the
offers made to it. Price need not always be the sole criterion for
awarding a contract. It is free to grant any relaxation, for bona fide
reasons, if the tender conditions permit such a relaxation. It may not
accept the offer even though it happens to be the highest or the
lowest. But the State, its corporations, instrumentalities and agencies
are bound to adhere to the norms, standards and procedures laid
down by them and cannot depart from them arbitrarily. Though that
decision is not amenable to judicial review, the court can examine
the decision-making process and interfere if it is found vitiated by
mala fides, unreasonableness and arbitrariness. The State, its
corporations, instrumentalities and agencies have the public duty to
be fair to all concerned. Even when some defect is found in the
decision-making process the court must exercise its discretionary
power under Article 226 with great caution and should exercise it
only in furtherance of public interest and not merely on the making
out of a legal point. The court should always keep the larger public
interest in mind in order to decide whether its intervention is called
for or not. Only when it comes to a conclusion that overwhelming
public interest requires interference, the court should intervene."
Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union ... vs Union Of India And Others on 13 November, 1980
"7. The law relating to award of a contract by the State, its
corporations and bodies acting as instrumentalities and agencies of
the Government has been settled by the decision of this Court
in Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of
India [(1979) 3 SCC 489] , Fertilizer Corpn. Kamgar Union
(Regd.) v. Union of India [(1981) 1 SCC 568] , CCE v. Dunlop India
Ltd. [(1985) 1 SCC 260 : 1985 SCC (Tax) 75] , Tata
Cellular v. Union of India [(1994) 6 SCC 651] , Ramniklal N.
Bhutta v. State of Maharashtra [(1997) 1 SCC 134] and Raunaq
International Ltd. v. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. [(1999) 1 SCC 492]
The award of a contract, whether it is by a private party or by a
public body or the State, is essentially a commercial transaction. In
arriving at a commercial decision considerations which are
paramount are commercial considerations. The State can choose its
own method to arrive at a decision. It can fix its own terms of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 15-05-2025
13:48:50
11
invitation to tender and that is not open to judicial scrutiny. It can
enter into negotiations before finally deciding to accept one of the
offers made to it. Price need not always be the sole criterion for
awarding a contract. It is free to grant any relaxation, for bona fide
reasons, if the tender conditions permit such a relaxation. It may not
accept the offer even though it happens to be the highest or the
lowest. But the State, its corporations, instrumentalities and agencies
are bound to adhere to the norms, standards and procedures laid
down by them and cannot depart from them arbitrarily. Though that
decision is not amenable to judicial review, the court can examine
the decision-making process and interfere if it is found vitiated by
mala fides, unreasonableness and arbitrariness. The State, its
corporations, instrumentalities and agencies have the public duty to
be fair to all concerned. Even when some defect is found in the
decision-making process the court must exercise its discretionary
power under Article 226 with great caution and should exercise it
only in furtherance of public interest and not merely on the making
out of a legal point. The court should always keep the larger public
interest in mind in order to decide whether its intervention is called
for or not. Only when it comes to a conclusion that overwhelming
public interest requires interference, the court should intervene."
Ramniklal N. Bhutta & Anr vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 19 November, 1996
"7. The law relating to award of a contract by the State, its
corporations and bodies acting as instrumentalities and agencies of
the Government has been settled by the decision of this Court
in Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of
India [(1979) 3 SCC 489] , Fertilizer Corpn. Kamgar Union
(Regd.) v. Union of India [(1981) 1 SCC 568] , CCE v. Dunlop India
Ltd. [(1985) 1 SCC 260 : 1985 SCC (Tax) 75] , Tata
Cellular v. Union of India [(1994) 6 SCC 651] , Ramniklal N.
Bhutta v. State of Maharashtra [(1997) 1 SCC 134] and Raunaq
International Ltd. v. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. [(1999) 1 SCC 492]
The award of a contract, whether it is by a private party or by a
public body or the State, is essentially a commercial transaction. In
arriving at a commercial decision considerations which are
paramount are commercial considerations. The State can choose its
own method to arrive at a decision. It can fix its own terms of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 15-05-2025
13:48:50
11
invitation to tender and that is not open to judicial scrutiny. It can
enter into negotiations before finally deciding to accept one of the
offers made to it. Price need not always be the sole criterion for
awarding a contract. It is free to grant any relaxation, for bona fide
reasons, if the tender conditions permit such a relaxation. It may not
accept the offer even though it happens to be the highest or the
lowest. But the State, its corporations, instrumentalities and agencies
are bound to adhere to the norms, standards and procedures laid
down by them and cannot depart from them arbitrarily. Though that
decision is not amenable to judicial review, the court can examine
the decision-making process and interfere if it is found vitiated by
mala fides, unreasonableness and arbitrariness. The State, its
corporations, instrumentalities and agencies have the public duty to
be fair to all concerned. Even when some defect is found in the
decision-making process the court must exercise its discretionary
power under Article 226 with great caution and should exercise it
only in furtherance of public interest and not merely on the making
out of a legal point. The court should always keep the larger public
interest in mind in order to decide whether its intervention is called
for or not. Only when it comes to a conclusion that overwhelming
public interest requires interference, the court should intervene."
Raunaq International Ltd vs I.V R. Construction Ltd. And Ors on 9 December, 1998
"7. The law relating to award of a contract by the State, its
corporations and bodies acting as instrumentalities and agencies of
the Government has been settled by the decision of this Court
in Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of
India [(1979) 3 SCC 489] , Fertilizer Corpn. Kamgar Union
(Regd.) v. Union of India [(1981) 1 SCC 568] , CCE v. Dunlop India
Ltd. [(1985) 1 SCC 260 : 1985 SCC (Tax) 75] , Tata
Cellular v. Union of India [(1994) 6 SCC 651] , Ramniklal N.
Bhutta v. State of Maharashtra [(1997) 1 SCC 134] and Raunaq
International Ltd. v. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. [(1999) 1 SCC 492]
The award of a contract, whether it is by a private party or by a
public body or the State, is essentially a commercial transaction. In
arriving at a commercial decision considerations which are
paramount are commercial considerations. The State can choose its
own method to arrive at a decision. It can fix its own terms of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 15-05-2025
13:48:50
11
invitation to tender and that is not open to judicial scrutiny. It can
enter into negotiations before finally deciding to accept one of the
offers made to it. Price need not always be the sole criterion for
awarding a contract. It is free to grant any relaxation, for bona fide
reasons, if the tender conditions permit such a relaxation. It may not
accept the offer even though it happens to be the highest or the
lowest. But the State, its corporations, instrumentalities and agencies
are bound to adhere to the norms, standards and procedures laid
down by them and cannot depart from them arbitrarily. Though that
decision is not amenable to judicial review, the court can examine
the decision-making process and interfere if it is found vitiated by
mala fides, unreasonableness and arbitrariness. The State, its
corporations, instrumentalities and agencies have the public duty to
be fair to all concerned. Even when some defect is found in the
decision-making process the court must exercise its discretionary
power under Article 226 with great caution and should exercise it
only in furtherance of public interest and not merely on the making
out of a legal point. The court should always keep the larger public
interest in mind in order to decide whether its intervention is called
for or not. Only when it comes to a conclusion that overwhelming
public interest requires interference, the court should intervene."
Directorate Of Education & Ors vs Educomp Datamatics Ltd. & Ors on 10 March, 2004
"21. The principles regarding award of contract were again reiterated
by the Supreme Court in the case of Director of Education (supra) and
it was held that Government must have a free hand in setting the terms
of tender and the Courts cannot strike down the terms of tender
prescribed by the Government because it feels that some other terms in
the tender would have been fairer, wiser or more logical. The Courts
can interfere only if the policy decision is arbitrary, discriminatory or
actuated by malice.