SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1981 Supreme(Guj) 13

M.P.THAKKAR, R.C.MANKAD
PRABHUDASBHAI BHIKHABHAI PATEL – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: G.K.SUKHVANI, J.M.THAKAR

M. P. THAKKAR, J.

( 1 ) ARBITRARY ? Is it arbitrary (on the part of State Govern- ment) to refuse to award a rupees 37 crore contract in respect of a work (Rock Fill Dams in the Head Reach of Narmada Project Main Canal) which will have tremendous impact on the life and well-being of the people of the entire State nay of the entire Nation to the lowest bidder the appellant ? And has it acted arbitrarily in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India in awarding it in preference to the appellant to the respondent No. 6 Company which indubitably has (1) a vast experience of executing large contracts not only in India but in Iraq (2) vast organization and (3) vast resources as compared to the appellant ? These are the questions raised by the appellant; whose petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India praying that (1) the contract granted to the respondent No. 6 Company be set aside and (2) it be granted to the appellant has been rejected summarily. And in order to answer these questions following further questions will have to be posed. (1) What matters in the life of a Nation saving of a couple of corers of rupees or (i) satisfactory (ii) successful and (iii) timely






Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top