Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
NITIN JAMDAR, SYAM KUMAR V.M.
Shaji P.M. S/o Moidu Padinhakkara Saidali – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. tender-related issues causing state financial loss (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. issues regarding sieving charges deductions (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. need for reviewing tender approvals (Para 10 , 11) |
| 4. decision-making authority to prevent losses in future (Para 12 , 13) |
JUDGMENT :
NITIN JAMDAR, C.J.
1. The Petitioner has filed this Public Interest Litigation challenging the award of tenders by the Irrigation Department of the Government of Kerala, primarily on the ground that the grant of tenders has resulted in substantial loss to the State exchequer.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Two learned Special Government Pleaders have appeared, one for the Finance Department of the State, and the second for the Irrigation and Water Resources departments of the State.
3. The State of Kerala took cognisance of the fact that the storage capacity of the majority of the reservoirs in the State has reduced over the years on account of sedimentation and constituted a committee to prepare draft Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for desiltation of the reservoirs in Kerala. The Committee prepared the draft Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), which was duly published. The draft
The court underscores the necessity for clear guidelines on calculating deductions in tender awards to safeguard public funds from arbitrary losses in the tendering process.
The court ruled that statutory authorities must adhere strictly to tender rules, rejecting arbitrary acceptance of bids that are significantly lower than the highest bid to safeguard public revenue.
The court ruled that bids below the justified rate are non-responsive, emphasizing judicial respect for expert evaluations in tendering processes.
Court exercising powers under Article 226 of Constitution of India has jurisdiction to examine decision making process without even going into merits of such decision.
The court upheld the constitutionality of government orders granting price preference to Labour Contract Co-operative Societies in public tenders, affirming limited judicial review in contractual mat....
Judicial review of tender conditions is limited; courts should not interfere unless actions are arbitrary, discriminatory, or mala fide, ensuring public interest is prioritized.
The court emphasized that tender processes for natural resources must prioritize public interest and ensure the State receives fair value, reflecting discrepancies in price setting led to judicial in....
public authorities must be left with the same liberty as they have in framing the policies - Contracts are legally binding commitments and they commit the authority which may be held to be a State wi....
Tender notices must clearly define eligibility criteria to ensure fairness and prevent discrimination among bidders, particularly when involving contractors from different states.
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
