Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.37 seconds)Tata Cellular vs Union Of India on 26 July, 1994
14. That substantial changes were made to the Master Plan in
2007 is not in dispute. According to learned counsel for the Petitioner,
these changes could have been taken into consideration and the
Petitioner asked to make pro-rata adjustments in its bid. Of course, this
was a possibility that was available to Respondent No.1. But another
option available was to go in for a fresh tender which might have
attracted wider and greater participation due to the sweeping changes
brought about in the Master Plan which increased the ground coverage
from 3% to 25% and FAR from 7 to 100. Which was the better option
to adopt is not really for the courts to decide and Respondent No.1 must
WP (C) No.17348/2006 Page 11 of 15
be given adequate leeway in taking a decision in this regard. The
Supreme Court has time and again observed that if the Court prefers one
option to another, it does not mean that the less preferred option taken
by the administrative authority is incorrect. Some latitude must be given
to the administrative authority in the decision making process and the
courts should restrain themselves from exercising the power of judicial
review unless necessary. (See for example Tata Cellular v. Union of
India, (1994) 6 SCC 651)
M/S Master Marine Services Pvt. Ltd vs Metcalfe & Hodgkinson Pvt. Ltd. & Anr on 19 April, 2005
17. There is no doubt that in law Respondent No.1 has the power
to cancel the tender and indeed this was not even questioned by learned
counsel for the Petitioner. However, that power cannot be exercised
arbitrarily or contrary to the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution.
If the discretionary power is so exercised, the courts can always step in
by way of judicial review and remedy the situation. This has been so
held by the Supreme Court in Master Marine Services (P) Ltd. v.
Metcalfe & Hodgkinson (P) Ltd. and another, (2005) 6 SCC 138.
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Companies Act, 1956
1