SANJIB BANERJEE, SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
Kumbhat Holographics – Appellant
Versus
Government of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary Prohibition and Excise Department – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, J.
Two of the six writ petitioners, who had approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to complain of the unfair tender terms presented by the State, assail the common order dated February 10, 2021 dismissing the writ petitions.
2. At the outset, it must be observed that matters of the present kind must be treated with great circumspection, since the real fight is between the private parties to obtain a lucrative contract and the status of the employer is used as an excuse to approach the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Further, the Court may not have the expertise to go into complex matters such as technical specifications. Equally, notwithstanding the employer being a State or other authority answering to the description under Article 12 of the Constitution, there is an element of latitude which has to be allowed for an employer to choose the product that would be best suited to it. The benefit of the doubt has always to be given to the employer in most cases and there is a presumption that the process adopted is fair and reasonable. However, such presumption is rebuttable.
3. It needs also to be
Central Coalfield Limited v. SLL-SML (Joint Venture Consortium)
Directorate of Education v. Educomp Datamatics Ltd.
Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa
Kumbhat Holographics v. State of Tamil Nadu
Master Marine Services Pvt. Ltd v. Metcalfe and Hodgkinson Pvt. Ltd.
Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd v. State of Karnataka
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.