Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.39 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Onkar Lal Bajaj Etc. Etc vs Union Of India & Anr. Etc. Etc on 20 December, 2002
In the judgment in Onkar Lal Bajaj 's case relied on by Sri. Jawahar,
the Apex Court was dealing with the validity of an order passed by the
Government of India on 09-08-2002 by which the allotments of retail outlets,
LPG distributorship and SKO-LDO dealerships based on the recommendations
of the Dealer Selection Boards made from 01-01-2000 onwards were decided
to be cancelled. The decision was taken on the basis of media reports that selection
was tainted with political patronage, though 3546 allotments were made after
selection by the selection board. The contention raised on behalf of the
respondents therein that writ will not lie in the matter to enforce the terms of
contract and that the remedy is to file suit for specific performance was rejected
observing that the cancellation was not on account of non-fulfilment of any of the
terms of agreement. It was found that the complaints were received only against
360 selections out of which 242 were found baseless, 39 were subjudice and the
remaining were forwarded for further enquiry. The Apex Court held as follows:
Afcons Infrastructure Ltd vs Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. & Anr on 15 September, 2016
In Afcons Infrastructure Ltd's case (supra) relied on by Sri. Paulose
W.P(C).No.25178/2020-V 14
the Apex Court held that even if there was an ambiguity or doubt, the High Court
ought to have refrained from giving its own interpretation unless it had come to a
clear conclusion that the interpretation given by the employer was perverse or
mala fide or intended to favour one of the bidders. It was held that the
constitutional courts must defer to this understanding and appreciation of the
tender documents, unless there is mala fide or perversity in the understanding or
appreciation or in the application of the terms of the tender conditions. It is
possible that the owner or employer of a project may give an interpretation to the
tender documents that is not acceptable to the constitutional courts, but that by
itself is not a reason for interfering with the interpretation given.
Jagdish Mandal vs State Of Orissa & Ors on 11 December, 2006
In Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa: (2007)14 SCC 517 it was held
that the purpose of judicial review of administrative action is intended to check
whether choice or decision is made "lawfully" and not to check whether choice or
decision is "sound". When the power of judicial review is invoked in matters
relating to tenders or award of contracts, certain special features should be borne
in mind. A contract is a commercial transaction. Evaluation of tenders and
awarding of contracts are essentially commercial functions. -xxxxx--. If the
decision relating to award of contract is bona fide and is in public interest, courts
will not, in exercise of power of judicial review, interfere even if a procedural
aberration or error in assessment or prejudice to a tenderer, is made out.
Municipal Corporation vs Bvg India Limited on 27 March, 2018
16. A three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Municipal Corpn., Ujjain
W.P(C).No.25178/2020-V 16
v. BVG India Ltd., (2018) 5 SCC 462, wherein appointment of an agency for
collection of solid waste and its transportation based on tenders invited by Ujjain
Municipality was under challenge, held as follows:
Tata Cellular vs Union Of India on 26 July, 1994
The principles which have to be applied in judicial review of administrative decisions,
especially those relating to acceptance of tender and award of contract, have been considered
in great detail by this Court in Tata Cellular v. Union of India: (1994)6 SCC 651, wherein this
Court observed that the principles of judicial review would apply to the exercise of contractual
powers by government bodies in order to prevent arbitrariness or favouritism. However, there
are inherent limitations in exercise of that power of judicial review. The Government is the
guardian of the finances of the State. It is expected to protect the financial interest of the State.
The right to refuse the lowest or any other tender is always available to the Government. But,
the principles laid down in Article 14 of the Constitution have to be kept in view while
accepting or refusing a tender. There can be no question of infringement of Article 14 if the
Government tries to get the best person or the best quotation. The right to choose cannot be
considered to be an arbitrary power. Of course, if the said power is exercised for any collateral
purpose, the exercise of that power will be struck down.
M/S Master Marine Services Pvt. Ltd vs Metcalfe & Hodgkinson Pvt. Ltd. & Anr on 19 April, 2005
The modern trend points to judicial restraint in administrative action. The Court does not sit as
a court of appeal but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made. The Court
does not have the expertise to correct the administrative decision. If a review of the
administrative decision is permitted, it will be substituting its own decision without the
necessary expertise which itself may be fallible. The Government must have freedom of
contract. In other words, a fair play in the joints is a necessary concomitant for an
administrative body functioning in an administrative sphere or a quasi-administrative sphere.
However, the decision must not only be tested by the application of the Wednesbury principle of
reasonableness, but must also be free from arbitrariness and not affected by bias or actuated by
mala fides. [See the judgment in Master Marine Services (P) Ltd. v. Metcalfe & Hodgkinson (P)
Ltd.
Indra Sawhney Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Others, Etc. Etc. on 16 November, 1992
In the judgment in Indra Sawney's case (supra),
relied on by Sri. Jawahar Jose, the Apex Court while considering the question of
reservation in appointments under the State for backward classes has held that
equality contemplated by Article 14 of the Constitution of India would be secured
not only when equals are treated equally but also when unequals are treated
unequally. In the present case the contention is that transporters from Karnataka
State and those from Kerala State are unequals, who were treated differently in
Ext.P2 notification; but in Ext.P1, they are treated equally.