Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 48 (0.63 seconds)
Indore Education And Services Society ... vs Ministry Of Housing And Environment on 22 March, 2024 cites

Rajasthan Housing Board And Another vs G.S. Investments And Another on 31 October, 2006

(ii) It is further contended that the highest bidder does not have a vested right and in the judicial review, the Court can only examine the decision 62 W.P. 3523 of 2017 making process and not the decision itself. He further placed reliance on the judgment passed in the case of Rajasthan Housing Board Vs. G.S. Investments reported in 2007(1) SCC 477 [relevant para are reproduced above in para 18].
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 165 - G P Mathur - Full Document

Union Of India & Ors vs M/S. Bhim Sen Walaiti Ram on 29 September, 1969

Once these aspects are recognised, there appears to be no 49 W.P. 3523 of 2017 basis for contending that the owner of the privileges in question who had offered to sell them cannot decline to accept the highest bid if he thinks that the price offered is inadequate. There is no concluded contract till the bid is accepted. Before there was a concluded contract, it was open to the bidders to withdraw their bids -- see Union of India v. Bhimsen Walaiti Ram[13]. By merely giving bids, the bidders had not acquired any vested rights. The fact that the Government was the seller does not change the legal position once its exclusive right to deal with those privileges is conceded. If the Government is the exclusive owner of those privileges, reliance on Article 19(1)(g) or Article 14 becomes irrelevant. Citizens cannot have any fundamental right to trade or carry on business in the properties or rights belonging to the Government--nor can there be any infringement of Article 14, if the Government tries to get the best available price for its valuable rights. The High Court was wholly wrong in thinking that purpose of Sections 22 and 29 of the Act was not to raise revenue.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 59 - V Ramaswami - 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   2 3 4 5 Next