Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Natural Gas Supplies Prioritized Under Section 3 Essential Commodities Act Amid LNG Disruptions: Central Govt Order
11 Mar 2026
Delhi High Court Directs Ministries, CBFC to Implement Film Accessibility Features for Disabled Persons per RPWD Act Guidelines
11 Mar 2026
Foreign Nationals Entitled to Article 22(1) Grounds of Arrest in Known Language: Karnataka HC Sets at Liberty but Orders Handover to FRRO
11 Mar 2026
Madras HC Permits CBSE Student to Appear for Maths as Additional Subject Despite Policy Violation in Peculiar 'Rat Race' Circumstances
11 Mar 2026
Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Neha Rathore
11 Mar 2026
Menaka Guruswamy Elected India's First Openly Queer Rajya Sabha MP
11 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
P. VELMURUGAN, K. K. RAMAKRISHNAN
Amaranathan – Appellant
Versus
K. Baskaran – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT :
(Order of the Court was made by P.VELMURUGAN.,J)
The Writ Appeal filed by the private respondent is W.A(MD)No.408 of 2019 and the Writ Appeal filed by the Society is W.A(MD)No.536 of 2019.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court.
3. The private respondent/first respondent herein filed the Writ Petition and the Writ Court considered the fact and held that call for tender has not been done property and therefore disposed of the Writ Petition with certain directions, which reads as follows:
(i) The second respondent is directed to hold fresh auction on 29.3.2018 at 3.00 p.m. in his office. On the said date, the Petitioner and the sixth respondent/Amaranathan alone will be the participants. The sixth respondent can be called upon to match the offer made by the Writ Petitioner.
(ii) If the sixth respondent is not willing to match the Writ Petitioner’s offer, the second responde
The court ruled that failure to publish tender notices in widely circulated newspapers violates statutory requirements, necessitating a fresh auction process.
A party must participate in auction proceedings to have the standing to challenge them; non-participation negates any locus standi.
The court established that transparency in the tender process is essential, and failure to comply with statutory requirements can render the tender process invalid.
Point of Law : When some defect is found in the decision-making process, court must exercise its discretionary powers under Article 226 with great caution and should exercise it only in furtherance o....
The court affirmed the authority's right to seek clarifications in the tender process and limited judicial intervention in such matters.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for transparency, fairness, and adherence to the principles of a level playing field in the tender process, as mandated by Rule ....
The judgment underscores the significance of complying with tender conditions, the limited scope for judicial interference in tender processes, and the availability of appeal mechanisms under Section....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for transparency and adherence to tender regulations, including the need for valid qualifications in the technical bid, as per the ....
Judicial review in tender matters is limited; unsuccessful bidders cannot later challenge tender conditions they participated under.
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
Listen Article