Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.19 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Sukhdev Singh & Ors vs Bagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi And ... on 21 February, 1975
Thereafter, the aforesaid Rule was subsequently
approved in 'A.S.AHLUWALIA VS. STATE OF
PUNJAB', (1975) 3 SCC 503 and 'SUKHDEV SINGH
VS. BHAGATRAM SARDAR SINGH RAGHUVANSHI',
(1975) 1 SCC 421. It was further held that the
aforesaid Rule of Administrative Law also emanates
from Article 14 and does not rest merely on Article 14
and has an independent existence. The conditions with
regard to eligibility of the tenderers have to be held to
be mandatory and the Tender Inviting Authority cannot
be permitted to deviate from the same.
G.J. Fernandez vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 1 February, 1990
This view was
taken by the Supreme Court in the case of
'G.J.FERNANDEZ VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND
OTHERS', (1990) 2 SCC 488 and 'PODDAR STEEL
CORPORATION VS. GANESH ENGINEERING',
(1991) 3 SCC 273. It has further been held that if
non-fulfillment of the required condition results in
rejection of the tender, then it would be essential part of
the tender.
Poddar Steel Corporation vs Ganesh Engineering Works And Others on 6 May, 1991
This view was
taken by the Supreme Court in the case of
'G.J.FERNANDEZ VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND
OTHERS', (1990) 2 SCC 488 and 'PODDAR STEEL
CORPORATION VS. GANESH ENGINEERING',
(1991) 3 SCC 273. It has further been held that if
non-fulfillment of the required condition results in
rejection of the tender, then it would be essential part of
the tender.
Kanhaiya Lal Agrawal vs Union Of India & Ors on 29 July, 2002
[SEE:'KANHAIYA LAL AGRAWAL VS.
10
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.', 2002 (6) SCC 315 and
'IRCTC VS. DOSHION VEIOLIA WATER
SOLUTIONS', 2010 (13) SCC 364].
Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs The International Airport Authority Of ... on 4 May, 1979
6. I have considered the rival submissions and
have perused the record. It is trite law that the
conditions of the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) should be
8
read harmoniously and cannot be read in isolation. It is
well settled legal proposition that the requirement in a
Tender Notice can be classified essential conditions viz.,
those which lay down the essential conditions of
eligibility and others, which are ancillary or subsidiary.
In case the essential conditions of eligibility, the
authority issuing tender may require to enforce them
rigidly, whereas in case of ancillary condition, it may be
open to the authority to deviate from and not to insist
upon the strict literal compliance of the conditions in
appropriate cases. It is also well settled Rule of
Administrative Law that an executive authority must be
rigorously held to the standards by which it professes its
actions to be judge and it must scrupulously observe
those standards on pain of invalidation of an act in
violation of them. The aforesaid rule, which was
enunciated by Mr.Justice Frankfurter in 'VITERALLI VS.
SATON', 359 US 535 was approved by the Supreme
Court in the celebrated case of 'RAMANA DAYARAM
SHETTY VS. INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
9
AUTHORITY OF INDIA', AIR 1979 SC 1628.
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Labh Singh Ahluwalia Son Of S. Ajmer ... vs State Of Punjab And Others on 2 February, 2011
Thereafter, the aforesaid Rule was subsequently
approved in 'A.S.AHLUWALIA VS. STATE OF
PUNJAB', (1975) 3 SCC 503 and 'SUKHDEV SINGH
VS. BHAGATRAM SARDAR SINGH RAGHUVANSHI',
(1975) 1 SCC 421. It was further held that the
aforesaid Rule of Administrative Law also emanates
from Article 14 and does not rest merely on Article 14
and has an independent existence. The conditions with
regard to eligibility of the tenderers have to be held to
be mandatory and the Tender Inviting Authority cannot
be permitted to deviate from the same.
1