Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.45 seconds)
Boinapalli Srinivasa Rao vs The State Of Telangana on 28 September, 2020 cites

Tata Cellular vs Union Of India on 26 July, 1994

12. The learned Government Pleader further submits that the technical bid in respect of four (04) works was opened on 17.02.2020 KL,J W.P. No.6595 of 2020 & batch 7 and three (03) more bidders i.e., Mr. Dugyala Devender Rao, Samaiah & Company and Sai Manikanta, have also submitted bids. At that particular stage, before evaluating the tenders as per the instruction of the Chief Engineer, the tenders were cancelled on 30.03.2020 i.e., within a period of 45 days which is within the bid validity period of 90 days. The respondents' authorities have not opened the financial bid. Therefore, the petitioners cannot claim that they have suffered huge loss and they would be successful bidders in case of opening financial bid. He would also contend that there is no irregularity or illegality in cancelling the earlier tenders and in issuing fresh tenders. Further, the scope of judicial review under Article - 226 of the Constitution of India is very limited and there is no ground or circumstance that warrants interference by this Court by exercising its powers under judicial review in cancelling the earlier tenders and in issuing fresh tender notification. The petitioners instead of participating in the fresh tenders filed the present writ petitions and sought interim orders with a mala fide intention to stall the entire work. He has placed reliance on the principles held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Tata Cellular v. Union of India4, M/s. CWE - Soma Consortium2 and Maa Binda Express Carrier v. North-east Frontier Railway5.
Supreme Court of India Cites 33 - Cited by 3275 - S Mohan - Full Document

M/S. Sai Ram Constructions, vs The State Of Telangana, on 20 November, 2018

14. The learned counsel for respondent No.4 would further submit that due to the interim orders granted by this Court, the entire KL,J W.P. No.6595 of 2020 & batch 9 construction of check dams is stalled and the ayacutdars would suffer. He has also placed reliance on the principle held in an unreported judgment rendered by a Single Judge of High Court of Judicature for the States of Telangana and the Andhra Pradesh in M/s. Sai Ram Constructions v. The State of Telangana6, which was confirmed by a Division in W.A. No.1595 of 2018, dated 06.12.2018; M/s. CWE - Soma Consortium2 and Maa Binda Express Carrier5.
Telangana High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 6 - P N Rao - Full Document

Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs The International Airport Authority Of ... on 4 May, 1979

8. The learned senior counsel also would submit that after cancellation of the said four tenders, the respondents' authorities have issued fresh tenders dated 30.03.2020 by including two other works for an estimated cost of Rs.19,87,06,893/- only to avoid the petitioners in participating the tenders. Since as per Class - I Contractor's License, the petitioners cannot participate in the work estimate of more than Rs.10.00 Crore. Thus, the action of the respondents' authorities is arbitrary and illegal. There is no transparency and fairness in cancelling the tenders and issuing fresh tenders. The learned senior counsel has placed reliance on the principles held in Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India1, State of Jharkhand v. M/s. CWE - Soma Consortium2 and 1 . (1979) 3 SCC 489 2 .
Supreme Court of India Cites 47 - Cited by 2519 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

M/S Master Marine Services Pvt. Ltd vs Metcalfe & Hodgkinson Pvt. Ltd. & Anr on 19 April, 2005

In Master Marine Services Pvt. Ltd., v. Metcalfe and hodgkinson Pvt. Ltd.8, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the State, its Corporations, Instrumentalities and Agencies have the public duty to be fair to all concerned. Even when some defect is found in the decision making process, the Court must exercise its discretionary power under Article 226 with great caution and should exercise it only in furtherance of public interest and not merely on the making out of a legal point. The Court should always keep the larger public interest in mind in order to decide whether its intervention is called for or not. Only when it comes to a conclusion that overwhelming public interest requires interference, the Court should interfere.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 388 - G P Mathur - Full Document

Directorate Of Education & Ors vs Educomp Datamatics Ltd. & Ors on 10 March, 2004

24. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Directorate of Education v. Educomp Datamatics Ltd.9 by relying on its earlier judgment in Tata Cellular4 held that the Courts can scrutinize the award of the contractors by the Government or its Agencies in exercise of its powers of judicial review to prevent arbitrariness or favoritism. However, there are inherent limitations in the exercise of the power of judicial review in such matters.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 272 - Full Document
1