Tata Cellular vs Union Of India on 26 July, 1994
6. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, there was no necessity for R-1 to hold an enquiry behind the back of the petitioner. The documents furnished by the petitioner were in conformity with the tender notification. Even if such an enquiry had been conducted behind the back of the petitioner, it was the duty of R-1 to hear the petitioner before passing Annexure-G. According to him, R-1 has failed to follow the principles of natural justice and the action of R-1 is contrary to Sub-rule (3) of Rule 23 of the Rules. Relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Tata Cellular v. Union of India, , he contends that the Court has to interfere with the order passed by R-1 as per Annexure-G as the action of R-1 is arbitrary, unfair and illegal and that no reasonable person on proper application of mind can take such a decision. According to him, order passed by R-1 has to be quashed.