Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (1.28 seconds)
State Of Jharkhand & Ors vs M/S Cwe-Soma Consortium on 12 July, 2016 cites

Laxmikant & Ors vs Satyawan & Ors on 19 March, 1996

However, the decision must not only be tested by the application of Wednesbury principles of reasonableness but also must be free from arbitrariness not affected by bias or actuated by mala fides. It was also pointed out that quashing decisions may impose heavy administrative burden on the administration and lead to increased and unbudgeted expenditure. (See para 113 of the Report, SCC para 94.)” The court does not have the expertise to correct the administrative decision as held in Laxmikant and Ors. v. Satyawan and Ors. (1996) 4 SCC 208, the government must have freedom of contract.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 99 - N P Singh - Full Document

Tata Cellular vs Union Of India on 26 July, 1994

“70. It cannot be denied 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, it must be clearly stated that there are inherent limitations in exercise of that power of judicial review. 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.”
Supreme Court of India Cites 33 - Cited by 3275 - S Mohan - Full Document
1