Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.40 seconds)Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs The International Airport Authority Of ... on 4 May, 1979
In Raman Dayaram Shetty (supra), the facts before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court was that tenders were invited by the International Airport
Authority from registered second class hoteliers having at least 5 years'
experience for putting up and running a second class restaurant and two
snack bars at the airport for a period of 3 years. The tender of respondent
4 was the highest and the only tender which complied with the
requirements of the tender form. It was pointed out by respondent 4
themselves that their experience related to catering for 10 years in running
canteens for well known organizations. The main contention on behalf of
the appellant was that the International Airport Authority-State was not
entitled to depart from the conditions of eligibility. In relation to such fact,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the administrative authority is
equally bound by the norms, standards and procedures laid down by it for
others and was not entitled to act arbitrarily in accepting the tender. In the
case at hand, it is found that the primary objection of the respondents-
IOCL that the offered land of the petitioner does not fall within the
advertised location has not found favour in the light of the above
discussion. Thus the facts are quite distinguishable from the cited
decision.
Indu Gupta vs Director, Sports Punjab And Anr. on 31 May, 1999
In Indu Gupta (supra), the facts before the Punjab and Haryana High
Court was that the petitioner applied for admission in B. Tech. course. She
claimed the benefit of reservation in the sports category. She could not get
the gradation certificate countersigned by the Director of Sports, Punjab.
So, she was not considered for admission in the reserved category of sports
personnel. While dealing with such fact, the Court observed while taking
into consideration several decisions, that the cumulative effect of the well
enunciated principles of law is that the terms and conditions of the
brochure where they used pre-emptory language cannot be held to be
merely declaratory. The brochure has the force of law. Although the
principles as above is substantial but since it is found that there is no
such violation on the part of the petitioner such principles does not stand
in the way in granting relief to the petitioner.
State Of West Bengal vs Subhas Kumar Chatterjee & Ors on 17 August, 2010
In Subhas Kumar Chatterjee (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
held no Court can issue mandamus directing the authorities to act in
contravention of the rules as it would amount to compelling the authorities
to violate law. Such directions may result in destruction of rule of law. In
the case at hand, it is found that the objection raised against
commissioning of LPG distributorship in favour of the petitioner is
17
precisely of not having land within the advertised location. It is found from
the above discussion in the foregoing paragraphs that the land of the
petitioner falls within the advertised location. Therefore, there cannot
occasion any circumstances amounting to compelling the authority to
violate law and act in contravention of rules. Thus, the ratio does not apply
to the facts of the case.
Ranjit Kumar Rishi vs The Union Of India & Ors on 17 January, 2018
5. Per contra, Mr. M. S. Yadav, learned advocate for the respondents-
IOCL submitted that the advertised location is Shyambazar. Though Letter
of Intent was issued in favour of the petitioner, however, subsequent to
such issuance of Letter of Intent, upon further enquiry, it had revealed
that the land offered by the petitioner falls within Mouza-Pandugram and
not within the advertised location. From the Government records, it is
found that the village code of Shyambazar and Pandugram are different
though both the mouzas exist under Goghat Police Station. Thus, the
showroom land offered by the petitioner did not fall in the advertised
location. Referring to the decision of this Court passed in Ranjit Kumar
7
Rishi versus The Union of India & Ors.1, he submitted that a village
generally comprises of one mouza and, therefore, since Pandugram and
Shyambazar are separate mouzas with different village code, they are
altogether different places. The petitioner in her online application
mentioned the showroom address as 'LR Plot No. 2805', Tatulmuri to
Arambagh Road, Shyambazar G.P., Hooghly, West Bengal, Pin- 712122
and godown address as 'LR Plot No. 2804, 2810', Mouza-Pandugram,
Hooghly, West Bengal. It is palpable that the petitioner purposefully, in
order to suppress the material fact, did not state the mouza within which
the showroom is situated. In fact, the petitioner did not have any land
within the advertised location on the date of application. When such fact
came to the knowledge of the respondents-IOCL that the showroom of the
petitioner is outside the advertised location the candidature of the
petitioner was put up for cancellation as per norms and conditions of the
brochure and approval has been obtained from appropriate authority of
respondents-IOCL for cancellation of Letter of Intent. The Oil Company
reserves the right to reject the candidature of any of the applicants at any
stage if there is any anomaly/discrepancy in the details provided in the
application. The petitioner received the No Objection Certificate from the
Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organization 24th January, 2019 and,
therefore, it can well be presumed that no construction commenced till
such period. The Letter of Intent of the petitioner expired in the year 2018
and there is no work of construction commenced within the validity of
1 FMA No. 1030 of 2016 (Decision of High Court at Calcutta)
8
Letter of Intent (LOI). The petitioner is thus not entitled to any extension of
Letter of Intent.
1