K. MANMADHA RAO
Phoenix Logistics Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT /ORDER :
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief :
2. Heard Mr. Unnam Sravan Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioners; learned Assistant Government Pleader, Industries for the 1st respondent; Mr. W.B. Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel, representing Mr. J. Sunil Kumar, learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent and Mr. J. Ugr
Dr. Renuka Bulani Prasad v. National Board Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS)
Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa and others
M/s. Capital Enterprises v. The State of Arunachal Pradesh and others
M/s. N.G. Projects Limited v. M/s. Vinod Kumar Jain and others
Rishi Kiran Logistics Pvt. Ltd. v. Board of Trustees of Kandla Port Trust and others
State of Arunachal Pradesh v. Nezone Law House, Assam
State of Tamil Nadu v. Hind Stone
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Sudhir Kumar Singh and others
Suresh Kumar Wadhwa v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others
Tata Motors Limited v. The Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking (Best) and others
Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation and others v. Anoj Kumar Agarwala and others
The court affirmed that the state’s discretion in amending tender conditions is valid if it serves public interest, and a petitioner does not hold a vested right to lease renewal under changing condi....
The decision-making process in tender matters must be fair, transparent, and not arbitrary, and interference by the court is restricted unless there is evidence of mala fides, intention to favor some....
Point of Law- Court in all the aforesaid decisions has cautioned time and again that courts should exercise a lot of restraint while exercising their powers of judicial review in contractual or comme....
Public interest and fairness must govern the tendering process, prohibiting judicial intervention in absence of mala fides or arbitrariness.
Public authorities must act fairly and cannot arbitrarily terminate contracts without justification, reinforcing the legitimacy of expectations within public-private partnerships.
The court upheld the authority's discretion in setting eligibility criteria for tenders, emphasizing that judicial review is limited to cases of arbitrariness or unreasonableness.
Judicial review in public procurement is limited; courts refrain from interference unless clear evidence of arbitrariness or bad faith is established.
Point of Law : Court would not sit in the arm chair of experts or the Tender Scrutiny Committee, which has scrutinized and found the 3rd respondent to be responsive and had to be awarded the contract....
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.