Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.94 seconds)Article 41 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Directorate Of Education & Ors vs Educomp Datamatics Ltd. & Ors on 10 March, 2004
Association Of Registration Plates vs Union Of India & Ors on 30 November, 2004
Global Energy Ltd. & Anr vs M/S Adani Exports Ltd. & Ors on 3 May, 2005
M/S Puravankara Projects Ltd. Ã ... vs M/S Hotel Venus International And Ors. Ã ... on 2 February, 2007
Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs The International Airport Authority Of ... on 4 May, 1979
It has been stated by this Court in Kasturi Lal's case
(supra):
Ram And Shyam Company vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 8 May, 1985
The action or the procedure adopted by the authorities
which can be held to be State within the meaning of Article
12, while awarding contracts in respect of properties
belonging to the State, can be judged and tested in the light
of Article 14. Once the State decides to grant any right or
privilege to others, then there is no escape from the rigour
of Article 14. These principles are settled by the judgments
of this Court in the cases of Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs.
International Airport Authority of India8, Kasturi Lal
8
[1979 (3) SCC 489],
24
Lakshmi Reddy vs. State of J & K9, Ram and Shyam Co.
vs. State of Haryana10, Mahabir Auto Stores vs. Indian
Oil Corporation11, Sterling Computers Ltd. vs. M & N
Publications12 and A.B. International Exports vs. State
Corporation of India.13 Executive does not have an
absolute discretion, certain principles have to be followed,
the public interest being the paramount consideration.
Mahabir Auto Stores & Ors vs Indian Oil Corporation & Ors on 6 March, 1990
The action or the procedure adopted by the authorities
which can be held to be State within the meaning of Article
12, while awarding contracts in respect of properties
belonging to the State, can be judged and tested in the light
of Article 14. Once the State decides to grant any right or
privilege to others, then there is no escape from the rigour
of Article 14. These principles are settled by the judgments
of this Court in the cases of Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs.
International Airport Authority of India8, Kasturi Lal
8
[1979 (3) SCC 489],
24
Lakshmi Reddy vs. State of J & K9, Ram and Shyam Co.
vs. State of Haryana10, Mahabir Auto Stores vs. Indian
Oil Corporation11, Sterling Computers Ltd. vs. M & N
Publications12 and A.B. International Exports vs. State
Corporation of India.13 Executive does not have an
absolute discretion, certain principles have to be followed,
the public interest being the paramount consideration.
Sterling Computers Limited Etc vs M & N Publications Limited And Ors on 12 January, 1993
By way of judicial review, the court cannot examine the
details of the terms of the contract which have been entered
into by the public bodies or the State. Courts have inherent
limitations on the scope of any such enquiry. If the contract
has been entered into without ignoring the procedure which
can be said to be basic in nature and after an objective
consideration of different options available taking into
account the interest of the State and the public, then the
court cannot act as an appellate court by substituting its
27
opinion in respect of selection made for entering into such
contract. But at the same time the courts can certainly
examine whether `decision making process' was reasonable,
rational, not arbitrary and violative of Article 14. [See:
Sterling Computers Ltd. (supra)].