Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.24 seconds)
Ca Block Citizens Association & Ors vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 12 April, 2010 cites

Sachidananda Pandey vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 11 February, 1987

20. Similar question again came up for consideration of the Apex Court in Shri Sachidanand Pandey (supra) wherein allotment of land in favour of the Taj Group of Hotels for constructing a five star hotel was challenged on the ground that no advertisement was issued by the Government inviting applications or tenders for purchasing such land in question on lease basis. Negativing the contention, the Apex Court held 16 that the principal and immediate object of such allotment was not to secure revenue but to encourage tourism and to earn foreign exchange and such other social and economic benefits. The Apex Court also observed that while public auction or inviting tenders is the normal rule for disposal of State's own property, it is not an invariable rule because public interest is paramount consideration. There may be situations where there are compelling reasons for departure from the rule, but the reasons should be rational and should not be suggestive of discretion. The Apex Court held that in spite of the fact that the Government intention was well known to those in hotel business, none other than Taj Group of Hotels and ITDC came forward and, therefore, in such a situation, the Government was justified in entering into negotiations with the Taj Group of Hotels for establishing a five star hotel at Calcutta instead of inviting tenders or holding public auctions.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 478 - O C Reddy - Full Document

Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy vs State Of Jammu And Kashmir & Another on 9 May, 1980

23. We are, therefore, of the view that the principle enunciated by the Apex Court in M/s. Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy (supra) was applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. The State Government had already issued the advertisement in the Times of India on 5th November, 2006 and given all interested parties an opportunity to submit their 19 applications for taking on lease the land for an integrated school from Primary level to Higher Secondary level. As many as 20 parties had applied and after acceptance of the application of respondent No. 9 by letter dated 22nd February, 2007, none of the 19 unsuccessful applicants even challenged the allotment of land measuring about 50 cottahs in favour of respondent No. 9, nor has any of those 19 parties challenged the allotment of land measuring 63 cottahs to respondent no. 9 in lieu of the advertised land. Moreover, when the State Government policy as per the notification dated 18th February, 2009 is to recover fixed premium at the rate of Rs. 1 lac per cottah of institutional land, there is no question of inviting tenders or holding a public auction and, therefore, we do not find any arbitrariness in the impugned allotment in favour of respondent No. 9.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 364 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document
1   2 Next