SANJAY KUMAR, ALOK ARADHE
Shanti Construction Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
State Of Odisha – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. interpretation of auction process and applicable rules. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding compliance with tender requirements. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. judicial review principles in public tender matters. (Para 9 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. need for fairness and transparency in interpretation. (Para 10 , 15) |
| 5. court’s directions regarding new auction process. (Para 16 , 17) |
JUDGMENT :
ALOK ARADHE, J.
Leave granted.
2. Both these appeals emanate from the judgment dated 01.03.2023 passed by the High Court of Orissa in a writ petition. These appeals involved the issue of interpretation of the term ‘previous Financial Year’ as defined in Rule 27(4)(iv) of ODISHA MINOR MINERAL CONCESSION RULES , 2016 (hereinafter, referred to as ‘the Rules’).
3. The relevant facts leading to filing of these appeals are as under.
3.1 The Tehsildar, Tangi Chowdwar, Cuttack on 11.07.2022 issued a notice inviting bids for extraction of sand on lease for a period of five years of Mahanadi Sand Quarry under Tehsil Tangi Chowdwar, District Cuttack, in the State of Orissa (hereinafter, referred to as ‘auction notice’). The bids were required to be submitted in a sealed cover on or before 18.07.2022. The
B.S.N. Joshi & Sons Ltd. v. Nair Coal Services Ltd. & Others
Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa & Others
UFLEX Limited v. Government of Tamil Nadu & Others
Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. & Anr.
Gujarat Pottery Works v. B.P. Sood, Controller of Mining Leases for India
Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd. v. S.L. Seal, Addl. Secretary (Steel and Mines), State of Odisha & Ors.
Aane Mines and Minerals, Nagarjuna Hills, Panjagutta, Hyderabad v. State of Karnataka & Another
Doiwala Sehkari Shram Samvida Samiti Ltd. v. State of Uttaranchal and Ors.
Subodh Kumar Singh Rathour v. Chief Executive Officer and Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1682
Prakash Asphaltings and Toll Highways (India) Ltd. v.Mandeepa Enterprises and Ors.
Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka & Others
Banshidhar Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Others
TATA Cellular v. Union of India
Natural Resources Allocation, In Re, Special Reference No.1 of 2012
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.