Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.29 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Triveni Engicons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs Rites Ltd. & Ors on 15 July, 2016
Insofar as the decision of the Calcutta High Court
in Triveni Engicons Pvt Ltd v. Rites Ltd (supra) is
concerned, there cannot be any quarrel with the proposition
that in the commercial field, the Government or a public
authority has the freedom to contract and can even amend the
terms of a Notice Inviting Tender provided no undue prejudice
is caused to a party who has participated in the tender
process, however, the said decision does not in any manner
support the case of the third respondent, inasmuch as, this is
not a case where the terms of the notice inviting tenders have
Page 27 of 31
HC-NIC Page 27 of 31 Created On Sat Aug 12 23:43:34 IST 2017
C/SCA/6179/2016 JUDGMENT
been amended.
Rajendra Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh& Others on 8 August, 1996
As regards the decision of the
Supreme Court in Rajendra Singh v. State of Madhya
Pradesh (supra) as noticed hereinabove, the learned counsel
for the second respondent Company is not in a position to
state that the conditions stipulated under Clause 8 of the
Tender Conditions are not mandatory in nature. Having regard
to the fact that in the present tender process, the eligibility
conditions have been relaxed to a great extent to enable new
players to participate in the tender process, the conditions
stipulated after such relaxation are required to be construed as
mandatory.
Raunaq International Ltd vs I.V R. Construction Ltd. And Ors on 9 December, 1998
17.6 As regards the decisions on which reliance has been
placed by the learned counsel for the third and fourth
respondents, the decision of the Supreme Court in Raunaq
International Limited v. I V R Construction Ltd (supra)
would not be applicable to the facts of the present case as
there is no question of the project being delayed on account of
interference by this court.
Jagdish Mandal vs State Of Orissa & Ors on 11 December, 2006
17.5 On behalf of the third respondent, it has been
contended that the third respondent has quoted the lowest
price and that it would be in the public interest to consider its
technical bid. Moreover, the third respondent has also created
equities, inasmuch as, more than Rs.10 lakhs has been paid by
it towards premium for change of tenure of the land and
further investment has been made for setting up a factory. In
the opinion of this court, the third respondent cannot claim any
equity on the ground of having created any infrastructure as it
Page 25 of 31
HC-NIC Page 25 of 31 Created On Sat Aug 12 23:43:34 IST 2017
C/SCA/6179/2016 JUDGMENT
has been declared as the lowest bidder. As held by the
Supreme Court in the case of Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa
(supra), a contract is a commercial transaction. Evaluating
tenders and awarding contracts are essentially commercial
functions. Principles of equity and natural justice stay at a
distance. From the facts as emerging from the record, it is
manifest that the third respondent has secured the Provisional
Vendor Registration on the basis of documents produced by
them before the second respondent company. One of the
documents which a bidder was mandated to produce was
"proof of applied for N.A. permission". As noticed earlier, in the
present case, since the land in question was subject to
restrictions under the Tenancy Act, prior to applying for N.A.
permission, it was necessary for the third respondent to firstly
get such restrictions removed. It appears that for the purpose
of obtaining Provisional Vendor Registration, the third
respondent had by way of "proof of applied for N.A.
permission" submitted an application for removal of
restrictions under the provisions of the Tenancy Act and not an
application for N.A. permission under section 65 of the Gujarat
Land Revenue Code. It appears that the concerned officer who
granted the provisional registration, not being aware of the
distinction between an application for removal of restrictions
as regards user of land and an application for N.A. permission,
has been misled into believing that the application for removal
of restrictions is an application for N.A. permission and has
granted the third respondent provisional vendor registration
and consequently, it has been held to be technically qualified
to participate in the tender process. Therefore, the third
respondent cannot be permitted to take advantage of its own
wrong, namely, of having submitted an application for removal
Page 26 of 31
HC-NIC Page 26 of 31 Created On Sat Aug 12 23:43:34 IST 2017
C/SCA/6179/2016 JUDGMENT
of restrictions of tenure as an application for N.A. permission.
Under the circumstances, the third respondent is not entitled
to claim any equity, as has been urged by the learned counsel
for the said respondent.
Virgo Softech Limited vs State Of Chhatisgarh . on 5 May, 2014
As regards the decision of the Chhattisgarh
High Court in Virgo Softech Limited v. State of
Chhattisgarh (supra) on which reliance has been placed for
the proposition that "the award of contract, whether it is by a
private party or by a public body or the State, is essentially a
commercial transaction; in arriving at a commercial decision,
considerations which are of paramount are commercial
considerations; the State can choose its own method to arrive
at a decision; it can fix its own terms of invitation to tender and
that it is not open to judicial scrutiny; it can enter into
negotiations before finally deciding to accept one of the offers
made to it; price need not always be the sole criterion for
awarding a contract; it is free to grant any relaxation, for bona
fide reasons if the tender conditions permit such a relaxation",
the same would have no applicability to the facts of the
present case, inasmuch as the tender conditions do not permit
any relaxation in the conditions stipulated under Clause 8
thereof. In fact, even according to the second respondent,
provisional vendor registration came to be granted to the third
respondent on a misconception of fact, namely that the
application for removal of restrictions of tenure under the
Tenancy Act was an application for N.A. permission under
section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code and not on
account of any relaxation of the tender conditions.
Har Shankar & Ors. Etc. Etc vs The Dy. Excise & Taxation Commr. & Ors on 21 January, 1975
"6. It has been held by a Constitution Bench of this Court
in Har Shankar v. Dy. Excise and Taxation Commissioner,
AIR 1975 SC 1121 that:
State Bank Of Patiala & Ors vs S.K.Sharma on 27 March, 1996
A mandatory provision conceived in the
interest of a party can be waived by that party, whereas
a mandatory provision conceived in the interest of the
public cannot be waived by him. In other words,
wherever a complaint of violation of a mandatory
provision is made, the court should enquire -- in whose
interest is the provision conceived. If it is not conceived
in the interest of the public, question of waiver and/or
acquiescence may arise -- subject, of course, to the
pleadings of the parties. This aspect has been dealt with
elaborately by this Court in State Bank of Patiala v. S.K.
Sharma, (1996) 3 SCC 364 and in Krishan Lal v. State of
J&K, (1994) 4 SCC 422, on the basis of a large number of
decisions on the subject. Though the said decisions were
rendered with reference to the statutory rules and
statutory provisions (besides the principles of natural
justice) governing the disciplinary enquiries involving
government servants and employees of statutory
corporations, the principles adumbrated therein are of
general application. It is necessary to keep these
considerations in mind while deciding whether any
interference is called for by the court -- whether under
Article 226 or in a suit. The function of the court is not a
mechanical one. It is always a considered course of
action."