Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.27 seconds)Section 4 in Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 2012 [Entire Act]
Section 6 in Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 2012 [Entire Act]
Jagdish Mandal vs State Of Orissa & Ors on 11 December, 2006
Before dealing
with this contention, this court finds it apposite to refer to the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Jagdish
Mandal v. State of Orissa, (2007) 14 SCC 517, wherein it has
(Downloaded on 27/11/2024 at 09:46:41 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:47629] (12 of 15) [CW-18724/2024]
been observed that the purpose of the judicial review of
administrative actions is to check whether the choice or decision is
made lawfully and not to check whether such choice or decision is
sound. The relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment in as
under:
Tata Motors Limited vs The Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply And ... on 19 May, 2023
(b) Tata Motors Ltd. v. Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply
and Transport Undertaking (BEST) and Ors. [Civil
Appeal No. 3897 of 2023, decided on 19.05.2023], passed
by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
Afcons Infrastructure Ltd vs Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. & Anr on 15 September, 2016
19. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner has made a
submission that such condition has been incorporated with
malafide intention so as to reduce the competition and favour a
few contractors, however, the petitioner has failed to make out a
case how it is malafide and also to implead any such contractors
to show the malafide intention on the part of respondent no.1. At
this juncture, this court finds it apposite to refer to the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Afcons Infrastructure
Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corpn. Ltd., (2016) 16 SCC 818,
wherein it was observed that the threshold of malafides, intention
to favour someone must be met before the constitutional court
(Downloaded on 27/11/2024 at 09:46:41 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:47629] (9 of 15) [CW-18724/2024]
interferes with the decision making process. The relevant
paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced as under:
The Silppi Constructions Contractors vs Union Of India on 21 June, 2019
"20. The essence of the law laid down in the judgments
referred to above is the exercise of restraint and caution;
the need for overwhelming public interest to justify judicial
intervention in matters of contract involving the State
instrumentalities; the courts should give way to the opinion
of the experts unless the decision is totally arbitrary or
(Downloaded on 27/11/2024 at 09:46:41 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:47629] (10 of 15) [CW-18724/2024]
unreasonable; the court does not sit like a court of appeal
over the appropriate authority; the court must realise that
the authority floating the tender is the best judge of its
requirements and, therefore, the court's interference should
be minimal. The authority which floats the contract or
tender, and has authored the tender documents is the best
judge as to how the documents have to be interpreted. If
two interpretations are possible then the interpretation of
the author must be accepted. The courts will only interfere
to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, bias, mala fides or
perversity. With this approach in mind we shall deal with
the present case."
Ratnagiri Gas & Power Pvt.Ltd vs Rds Projects Ltd.& Ors on 18 October, 2012
20. The learned counsel for petitioner has further contented,
while placing reliance on NG Projects (Supra), that clause 20 of
the NIT (Annex.2) is arbitrary and the respondent no.1 has
abused and exceeded its power by imposing such condition and
therefore, judicial review of the same is called for.
Section 3 in Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 2012 [Entire Act]
1