Back
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, ANURADHA SHUKLA
Maihar Cement Pipe Industries – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
ORDER
Dharmadhikari, J. -- 1. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.
2. By this instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the legality, validity and propriety of the Letter of Acceptance (LoA) dated 22.5.2024 (Annexure-P/7) issued by the respondent No.3 for the work of “Loading and Transportation of Coal by Payloaders & Tippers combination from East Purewa Seam (Surface Miner face) to Nigahi Wharfwall/Spur-2 Siding, Singrauli/Hopperof new CHP in east by Contractor’s tipping trucks including loading of coal in railway wagons at Nighai Wharf wall/Spur- 2 Siding, Singrauli for a quantity of 90.00 Lakh Tons for a period of three years (1096 days) at Nighai Project”, by which the tender has been awarded in favour of respondent No.4.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a proprietor ship firm carrying on the business in the name and style “Maihar Cement Pipe Industries”. The respondent no.3 floated a tender on 7.2.2024 for Loading and Transportation of Coal at Nigahi Wharf/Spur-2 Siding, Singrauli for a total quantity of Rs.90 Lacs tons for a period of three years. As p
The main legal point established in the judgment is that government procurement through the GeM portal is mandatory, and the conditions of the tender must align with government guidelines.
The court emphasized the necessity for transparency in public procurement processes, ruling that arbitrary actions in tender decisions violate procedural fairness and statutory requirements.
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.
Judicial review of tender conditions is limited; courts should not interfere unless actions are arbitrary, discriminatory, or mala fide, ensuring public interest is prioritized.
Judicial review in public procurement is limited; courts refrain from interference unless clear evidence of arbitrariness or bad faith is established.
Lowest bidder has no vested right to contract; authority may cancel tender for valid reasons like cartel without malice; tender conditions not judicially reviewable unless arbitrary.
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
