Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
N.V.ANJARIA, K.V.ARAVIND
Hindustan Technologies, Rep. By Its Authorised Signatory, Nidadavolu B. V. R. Lingam, S/o. Nidadavolu Namasivaya – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India, Rep. By Its Secretary (Ministry Of Defence) – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
K.V. ARAVIND, J.
Heard learned advocate Mr. K. Chandan for the petitioner and learned Additional Solicitor General of India Mr. K. Arvind Kamath along with learned Deputy Solicitor General of India Mr. H. Shanthi Bhushan for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
2. This petition is by a sole proprietorship company. This petition is filed styling as public interest litigation with a prayer to direct the respondent-authorities to strictly adhere to the terms and conditions of the tender notification for undertaking acoustic emission testing of HP Air bottles on Board in ships/submarines issued on 18.12.2023 and to direct the respondent-authorities to take stringent action against respondent No.4.
3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a company espousing the public interest for the welfare and benefit of the general public in the name and style of Hindustan Technologies. It is stated that the petitioner Company has no personal interest in the litigation and is not guided by self-gain. The business of the petitioner company is stated to provide manpower for marine works, such as welders for ship repairs, cutters and fabricators for the marine repair works. The company further
Public interest litigations must demonstrate bona fide public interest without conflict, while courts exercise limited scrutiny over administrative decisions unless evidence shows illegality or arbit....
The interpretation of eligibility criteria in public tenders is best determined by the tendering authority, and judicial review is limited to preventing arbitrariness or mala fides.
The court affirmed that a bidder's disqualification due to false declarations in tender processes is valid, emphasizing limited judicial review in contractual matters.
Lowest bidder has no right to public contract without essential eligibility compliance; judicial review limited to arbitrariness in process, not merits or substitution of authority's decision.
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....
The judgment emphasizes the limited scope of judicial review in contractual matters and the importance of fair play in the decision-making process. It highlights the freedom of the respondents to awa....
Judicial review of tenders limited to arbitrariness or malafide; eligibility conditions upheld if public interest served with multiple qualified bidders; bid time reduction valid with approval; ineli....
Judicial review in tender matters is limited to legality and fairness; minor procedural lapses do not justify interference if public interest is served.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
