Back
PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ
Neelkanth Transport – Appellant
Versus
Durgapur Steel Plant – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Prakash Shrivastava, J.
1. By way of this intra-court appeal writ petitioners have challenged the order of the learned Single Judge dated 10th of November, 2022 whereby W.P.A. 15129 of 2022 has been dismissed.
2. The appellants had approached writ Court with the plea that for the purpose of licensing of Mohan Kumar Mangalam (MKM) Park, the respondent authorities of DST had entrusted the respondent No. 4 and 5 with the job of e-auction. In response to the tender notice, the appellant No.1 had participated in the online tender process and had submitted the bid. According to the appellants, they were shown the hammer in the display screen from which they came to know that appellant No.1 had become the highest bidder. Further case of the appellants was that prior to the closure of the bidding process the appellant No.1 was shown as H1, hence, the appellant had sent e-mail dated 01.07.2022 to the concerned authorities informing that he had become the highest bidder, but surprisingly on 02.07.2022, the appellant was informed by the representative of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 that the appellant No.1 was not declared to be the auction winner. After submitting the representation,
The court upheld the principle of judicial restraint in administrative action and emphasized the need for the State to act within the bounds of reasonableness in tender matters.
Point of law: Supreme Court held that any contract of public service should not be interfered with lightly and in any case, there should not be any interim order derailing entire process of services ....
Courts should exercise restraint in interfering with tender matters and should only do so in cases of gross arbitrariness, discrimination, malafides, or bias.
The court highlighted the importance of adhering to the Standard Bidding Document (SBD) and Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) requirements, including the provision of accurate information, and emphasized ....
Courts should exercise restraint in contractual matters, refraining from meddling unless there's clear evidence of arbitrariness or mala fides.
![Technip Energies India Ltd. [Formerly Technip India Limited], through its authorized representative, Prashant Sharma, S/o. Brij Mohan Sharma VS Union of India through Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas - 2023 Supreme(Gau) 657](https://supremetoday-s3.b-cdn.net/Gauhati_1.png)
Power of judicial review can be invoked if approach adopted is found to be arbitrary or mala fide or if procedure adopted is meant to favour one.
A company is not required to disclose ongoing commitments of its directors that have not been officially transferred to it, as it constitutes a separate legal entity.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the decision making process in contractual matters can be reviewed if it is shown to be arbitrary, unreasonable, or if it violates the Wednesb....
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
