Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.30 seconds)G.J. Fernandez vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 1 February, 1990
In the said decision the Supreme Court in para 15 observed thus:
Sterling Computers Limited Etc vs M & N Publications Limited And Ors on 12 January, 1993
9. I do not find any merit in any of the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. Before dealing with the specific contentions advanced by Sri Mohan Reddy at the outset it is necessary to define the scope and limit of power of judicial review available to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in the matter of awarding work contracts by the public administration. The Supreme Court in the case of Sterling Computers Limited v. M & N Publications Limited and Ors. (2 supra) in paragraphs 17, 18, 19 and 20 observed thus:
Bhanu Construnctions Company Ltd. Rep. ... vs A.P. State Electricity Board, Rep. By ... on 1 March, 1994
The said copy does not bear any date. Sri Subrahmanya Reddy on instructions from his client submitted that they did not receive the letter dated 4-4-1994 claimed to have been sent by the petitioner and therefore, considering that letter did not arise. He submitted that the letters of the Members of the Parliament were taken note of by the Tender Committee. A Division Bench of this Court in Bhanu Constructions Co. Ltd., v. A .P. State Electricity Board (3 supra) upheld the plea of the respondents therein that the appellant therein, having not raised any objection at the time of evaluation of price bids before the Board considering the tender of the fourth respondent therein, could not raise the same in this Court having lost the award of the contract. The said ratio squarely covers the facts of this case also. Ten tenders were opened on 28-12-1993 in the presence of the tenderers or their representatives. No objection was taken by any tenderer or by the representatives of the tenderers to the tender submitted by the fourth respondent. Even the so called representation of the petitioner stated to have been sent on 4-4-1994 was not received by the respondents and there is no evidence to show that such a representation was sent to the authorities on 4-4-1994. There is evidence to show that the representations of the Members of the Parliament were taken note of irrespective of the fact whether such representations by the Members of the Parliament could be relevant material or not, for deciding as to whom the contract should be awarded. Therefore, I uphold the plea of the respondents that the petitioner is not entitled to raise objections to the tender submitted by the fourth respondent at this belated stage i.e., after conclusion of the contract between the fourth respondent and the administration on 21-11-1994. In that view of the matter I would have rejected the writ petition on this ground itself. However, the learned Counsel argued this case for considerable time. It is necessary to briefly deal with the other contentions also.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
1