Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 49 (0.34 seconds)
Shri Mahadev Shahra Sukrat Trust ... vs Urban Development And Environment ... on 22 March, 2024
cites
Laxmikant & Ors vs Satyawan & Ors on 19 March, 1996
17. Lastly, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 and 3 submitted that
the Courts do not have expertise to correct the administrative decisions as
has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Laxmikant and Ors Vs.
Satyawan and Ors. reported in (1996) 4 SCC 208, the government must
have freedom to enter into a contract.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors. vs Vijay Bahadur Singh And Ors. on 23 March, 1982
In support of the said proposition, learned senior counsel
for the defendant, Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi has also placed
reliance upon another decision of this Court in State of U.P
vs. Vijay Bahadur Singh (supra).
State Of Orissa And Ors vs Harinarayan Jaiswal And Ors on 14 March, 1972
In support of this
contention, he has placed reliance on the State of Orissa vs.
Harinarayan Jaiswal case (supra), relevant paragraph of
which reads as under:
Rajasthan Housing Board And Another vs G.S. Investments And Another on 31 October, 2006
(ii) It is further contended that the highest bidder does not have a vested
right and in the judicial review, the Court can only examine the decision
making process and not the decision itself. He further placed reliance on
the judgment passed in the case of Rajasthan Housing Board Vs. G.S.
Investments reported in 2007(1) SCC 477 [Relevant para are reproduced
in para 15 of the judgment ].
Article 12 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
U.P.Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Ors vs Om Prakash Sharma on 18 April, 2013
➢ U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and Ors. Vs. Om
Prakash Sharma reported in 2013(5) SCC 182.
M/S Master Marine Services Pvt. Ltd vs Metcalfe & Hodgkinson Pvt. Ltd. & Anr on 19 April, 2005
➢ Master Marine Services (P) Ltd. Vs. Metcalfe
& Hodgkinson (P) Ltd. and Anr reported in (2005) 6
SCC 138.
Union Of India & Ors vs M/S. Bhim Sen Walaiti Ram on 29 September, 1969
Once these aspects are recognised, there appears to be no
basis for contending that the owner of the privileges in
question who had offered to sell them cannot decline to accept
the highest bid if he thinks that the price offered is inadequate.
There is no concluded contract till the bid is accepted. Before
there was a concluded contract, it was open to the bidders to
withdraw their bids -- see Union of India v. Bhimsen Walaiti
Ram[13]. By merely giving bids, the bidders had not acquired
any vested rights. The fact that the Government was the seller
does not change the legal position once its exclusive right to
deal with those privileges is conceded. If the Government is
the exclusive owner of those privileges, reliance on Article
19(1)(g) or Article 14 becomes irrelevant. Citizens cannot
have any fundamental right to trade or carry on business in
the properties or rights belonging to the Government--nor
can there be any infringement of Article 14, if the Government
tries to get the best available price for its valuable rights. The
High Court was wholly wrong in thinking that purpose
of Sections 22 and 29 of the Act was not to raise
revenue.