Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.20 seconds)
M.Haneefa vs The Pathanamthitta Municipality on 3 November, 2008 cites

State Of Karnataka & Anr vs All India Manufacturers Organization & ... on 20 April, 2006

2. The petitioner's contention is that even in contractual matters this Court is empowered to decide as to whether the decision of an authority answering the definition of "State or authority" under Article 12 of the Constitution especially a statutory authority, is arbitrary. He relies on the decisions of the Supreme Court in STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER V. ALL INDIA MANUFACTURERS ORGANISATION AND OTHERS [(2006(4) SCC 683], RELIANCE ENERGY LTD.
Supreme Court of India Cites 28 - Cited by 245 - Full Document

Reliance Energy Limited & Another vs Maharashtra State Road Development ... on 11 September, 2007

AND ANOTHER V. MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPN. LTD AND OTHERS [2007(8) SCC 1] and a Division Bench decision of this Court in Den & Co. V. Mathai [2006(3) KLT S.N. 43(Case No.61)]. According to W.P.(c)No.28929/08 3 the petitioner, as is evident by the report now produced as Ext.R1(g) by the 1st respondent themselves, delay in the matter is on account of the action of the Municipality themselves and therefore this Court can interfere with the decision of the Municipality and direct the Municipality to permit the petitioner to execute the contract in accordance with the original agreement. He also raises a contention that the action of the Municipality is in violation of the principles of natural justice since after conducting the inspection on 22.9.2008, Ext.P13 order has been passed on 23.9.2008 without affording an opportunity to the petitioner to explain the matters, especially since he had objected to the conclusions in the report and offered to cure the defects pointed out in Ext.P10.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 249 - Full Document

Radhakrishna Agarwal & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 17 March, 1977

On 23.9.2008, Ext.P13 order has been passed terminating the contract at the risk and cost of the petitioner. In Ext.P13, the joint inspection report Ext.P11 has also been relied upon. W.P.(c)No.28929/08 6 When the petitioner has consistently objected to the proposals by filing reply to all the notices and objected to the findings in the inspection on 22.9.2008, I am not satisfied that the action of the municipality, without affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner on the proposed action, is in compliance with the principles of natural justice. The reliance by the 1st respondent on the decision in M/s. Radhakrishna Agarwal's case (supra) is misplaced. In fact that decision is of the year 1977. The Supreme Court has rendered numerous decisions thereafter in respect of contractual matters, in which the State is one of the contracting parties, wherein the Supreme Court has held that although in respect of questions of facts the parties should be relegated to the remedy by way of suit, this Court is not prevented from considering whether the action of the State or other authority is tainted by arbitrariness and discrimination. In other words, the action of the State or other authority even in contractual matters can be tested in the anvil of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. If that be so, then necessity to comply with principles of W.P.(c)No.28929/08 7 natural justice is ingrained in the State action. Here, I am satisfied that the action of the municipality in passing Ext.P13 order, the next day after making the inspection, that too without a hearing to the petitioner, when the petitioner has consistently objected to the notices issued to him, is unsustainable, especially when the findings during the inspection are disputed by the petitioner. I am of opinion that the Municipality could have taken the final decision only after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. In the above circumstances, Ext.P13 order is quashed and the Municipality is directed to take a fresh decision, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 684 - M H Beg - Full Document

K.C. Den And Co. vs P.P. Mathai And Ors. on 18 November, 2005

AND ANOTHER V. MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPN. LTD AND OTHERS [2007(8) SCC 1] and a Division Bench decision of this Court in Den & Co. V. Mathai [2006(3) KLT S.N. 43(Case No.61)]. According to W.P.(c)No.28929/08 3 the petitioner, as is evident by the report now produced as Ext.R1(g) by the 1st respondent themselves, delay in the matter is on account of the action of the Municipality themselves and therefore this Court can interfere with the decision of the Municipality and direct the Municipality to permit the petitioner to execute the contract in accordance with the original agreement. He also raises a contention that the action of the Municipality is in violation of the principles of natural justice since after conducting the inspection on 22.9.2008, Ext.P13 order has been passed on 23.9.2008 without affording an opportunity to the petitioner to explain the matters, especially since he had objected to the conclusions in the report and offered to cure the defects pointed out in Ext.P10.
Kerala High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 3 - S Jagan - Full Document
1