Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
Security and Intelligence Services (India) Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. impugned o.m. legality aspects (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. tenders issued under the impugned o.m. (Para 10 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. defense of o.m. by respondents (Para 16 , 18 , 19) |
| 4. overview of article 14 implications (Para 26 , 27) |
| 5. reaffirmation of reasonable classification (Para 30 , 34 , 39) |
| 6. final dismissal of writ petition (Para 54 , 55) |
JUDGMENT
Subramonium Prasad, J. The instant Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ to set aside/quash the Office Memorandum dated 13.09.2018 ("Impugned O.M.") issued by the Union of India/Department of Public Enterprises, Ministry of Industries and Heavy Industries & Public Enterprises ("Respondent No. 1") and the tender dated 07.03.2019 ("Impugned Tender I"), tender dated 29.03.2019 for Haryana Region I ("Impugned Tender II"), tender dated 29.03.2019 for Haryana Region II ("Impugned Tender III") and tender for Punjab Region ("Impugned Tender IV") (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Impugned Tenders") by GAIL (India) Limited ("Respondent No. 4").The Petitioner No. 1 is a private security agency established in 1974 and is lice
The classification of security agencies based on employment of ex-servicemen is reasonable and does not violate Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, promoting welfare and ensuring qualified ....
The amendment to the eligibility criteria for bidders in the CPWD Works Manual is deemed arbitrary and violative of Article 14, creating an unjust distinction between bidders based on their subsidiar....
Tender disqualification must be reasonable and justified; arbitrary rejections violate principles of fair competition.
The tendering authority's decision should not be interfered with unless it is mala fide, arbitrary, or irrational.
Judicial review in tender matters is limited to cases of arbitrariness or fundamental legal errors; ambiguity in tender specifications justifies cancellation.
The court upheld that 100% reservation for MSEs in public procurement is valid under the MSE Policy, rejecting claims of arbitrariness towards tender selection processes.
The decision-making process of the authority can be subject to judicial review, and interference is warranted if the decision is found to be palpably arbitrary and unreasonable.
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
