SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, ARUN KUMAR RAI
Manjeet Plastic Industries – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, A.C.J.
I.A. No. 6839 of 2024
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed for seeking amendment/addition in the Para (1) and prayer clause of the writ petition, which reads as under:
(b) Stay the operation of letter dated 04.07.2024 till the issues involved in the writ petition get resolved.”
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the instant interlocutory application has been filed for seeking leave of this Court to amend the Para (1) and prayer clause by challenging the decision taken by the Technical Committee, by which, the respondent no. 3 vide letter dated 04.07.2024 has opened the Technical Bid, in which, the petitioner’s bid has been rejected.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents, are having no objection in allowing the instant inter
Air India Ltd. vs. Cochin International Airport Ltd. (2000) 2 SCC 617
Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. (2016) 16 SCC 818
Dhananjay Malik vs. State of Uttaranchal
Directorate of Education & Ors. Vs. Educomp Datamatics Ltd. & Ors. (2004) 4 SCC 19
Dr. G. Sarana v. University of Lucknow
Dr. Major Meeta Sahai vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (2019) 20 SCC 17
Jagdish Mandal Vs. State of Orissa & Ors. (2007) 14 SCC 517
K.A. Nagamani vs. Indian Airlines
K.H. Siraj v. High Court of Kerala
Madan Lal and others Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others
Manish Kumar Shahi vs. State of Bihar
Manish Kumar Shahi vs. State of Bihar
Marripati Nagaraja vs. State of A.P. (2007) 11 SCC 522 : (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 68
Master Marine Services (P) Ltd. v. Metcalfe & Hodgkinson (P) Ltd. (2005) 6 SCC 138
Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka
Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner, Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation
N.G. Projects Limited vs. Vinod Kumar Jain & Ors. (2022) 6 SCC 127
New Horizons Limited & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. (1995) 1 SCC 478
Om Prakash Sukla Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Sukla
P.S. Gopinathan v. State of Kerala
Raunaq International Ltd. vs. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. & Ors. (1999)1 SCC 492
State of Orissa vs. Narain Prasad
Tata Cellular vs. Union of India
Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar
Vijendra Kumar Verma v. Public Service Commission, Uttarakhand and others
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.
District Collector is not empowered to consider the aspect of alteration of any route or alignment except to remove difficulties faced by the licensee. As a result of this, even the request of altern....
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....
Judicial review of tender conditions is restricted to cases of arbitrariness or unreasonableness, reinforcing that the authority determining eligibility criteria has the discretion and expertise in c....
Judicial review in tender matters is limited to assessing arbitrariness, irrationality, or mala fides; decisions should reflect fair competition and not accommodate late submissions of corrected bids....
Tender - Tender conditions are required to be read as provided in the tender document and if there are two views or construction possible than the view of the authority interpreting the tender docume....
Judicial review in public procurement is limited; courts refrain from interference unless clear evidence of arbitrariness or bad faith is established.
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.