Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the tender condition requiring experience in a metro civil construction work was satisfied by the joint venture's experience in an inter-city high speed railway project, and whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the tendering authority's decision rejecting the bid.
Analysis: The tender condition had to be read in its own terms, and the expression "metro" could not be treated as redundant. The metro railway statutes applicable to Nagpur showed that a metro railway is a distinct rail-guided mass rapid transit system, and the authority that framed the tender was best placed to understand the requirement. In tender matters, judicial review is limited to examining the decision-making process, and interference is warranted only where the decision is mala fide, intended to favour someone, or so arbitrary, irrational, or perverse that no reasonable authority could have taken it. The High Court ought not to have substituted its own interpretation unless the authority's view was shown to be perverse or mala fide, which was not established.
Conclusion: The bid rejection was valid, the High Court's interference was unwarranted, and the appeal succeeded.