Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.20 seconds)Union Of India And Ors vs Hindustan Development Corpn. And Ors on 15 April, 1993
In the above case, the Apex Court, following the case in Union of India Vs. Hindustan Development Corporation laid down 6 principles in which 4 and 5 are more appropriate to decide the case on hand. The terms of the invitation to tender cannot be open to judicial scrutiny because the invitation to tender is in the realm of contract and the Government must have freedom of contract. In other words, a fair play in the Government decision must not only be decided by the application of Wednesbury principle of reasonableness but must be free from arbitrariness not affected by bias or actuated by malafides. As mentioned above, in this case, the petitioner has not raised the plea of bias or malafides attributable on the part of the corporation. In the absence of the same, this Court cannot slightly interfere with the decision arrived at by the corporation in awarding the tender in favour of the third respondent in WP No. 3001 of 2016.
West Bengal State Electricity Board vs Patel Engineering Co. Ltd. & Ors on 15 January, 2001
25. The learned senior counsel appearing for the third respondent in WP No. 3001 of 2016 also relied on several decisions in support of his contention that judicial review in matters of this nature is impermissible. One among them is the decision rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court in (West Bengal Electricity Board vs. Patel Engineering Co. Ltd and others) AIR 2001 Supreme Court 682 wherein it was held that in para No.15 as follows:-
Tata Cellular vs Union Of India on 26 July, 1994
26. It is evident from the parameter laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court that in administrative action, this Court cannot interfere and substitute it's opinion unless a strong case is made out for such interference.
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 10 in Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998 [Entire Act]
Csepdi-Trishe Consortium vs Tamilnadu Generation And Distribution on 16 June, 2015
8. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that even on 26.10.2015, the petitioner has intimated the corporation regarding the calculation error made by them in the bid. The Corporation has taken a decision to award the contract in favour of the third respondent in WP No. 3001 of 2016 only on 11.01.2016. Therefore, as on the date when the calculation error was brought to the notice of the corporation, the corporation has not even processed the bids of the petitioner and the third respondent in WP No. 3001 of 2016 and at that time whose bid was the lowest one has not been determined. Therefore, the corporation ought to have permitted the petitioner to correct the calculation error instead of declaring them as L2. In this context, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner invited the attention of this Court Section 10 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act to impress upon the fact that only after evaluation and comparision of tenders, the tender accepting authority shall accept the lowest tender on the basis of objective and quantifiable factors by giving relative weights to the bids received from the tenderers. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner also relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in (CSEPDI-TRISHE Corporation vs. Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO) and others reported in 2015 (5) CTC 642 to drive home the point that after evaluation and comparision of tenders and after giving relative weights to the bids received, the tender accepting authority shall determine a bid as lowest. By relying on this decision, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner would contend that the Tender Accepting Authority has a role to cause objective evaluation of the tenders and should not be carried away by any other factors, including curable defects. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner therefore prayed this Court to allow the writ petitions as prayed for.
Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998
Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd vs Commissioner Ulhasnagar Municipal ... on 8 May, 2000
21. Applying the ratio laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the above decision, this Court is of the view that the claim made by the petitioner to carry out material corrections in the price bid in the guise of correcting arithmatical error, that too after 50 days from the opening of the price bid, is legally impermissible and it would amount to changing the Rules of the game after the players have entered into the arena.
Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Ltd vs State Of West Bengal & Anr on 11 November, 1974
In Erusian Equipment & Cemicals Ltd. V. State of West Bengal, this Court observed as under: (SCC p.75, para 17)
"When the Government is trading with the public, the demoractic form of Government demands equality and absence of arbitrariness and discrimination in such transactions". The activities of the Government have a public element,and, therefore, there should be fairness and equality. The State need not enter into any contract, with anyone, but if it does so, it must do so fairly without discrimination and without unfair procedure."