https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187934 In Government contracts and disposal of liquor privileges, a condition allowing rejection of the highest tender without reasons was treated as valid and not discriminatory merely because it reserved discretion to the State. The State was not obliged to accept the highest offer where another offer was considered more suitable or the public financial interest required otherwise, so the Article 14 challenge failed. The appellant's lease could not be cancelled on the basis of a later statement by the Government alone, because no independent cogent ground for annulment was shown and the appellant was the directly affected party. The acceptance of the revised offer was therefore left undisturbed. en-us Wed, 09 Jan 1974 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 11 Nov 2016 18:28:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187934 In Government contracts and disposal of liquor privileges, a condition allowing rejection of the highest tender without reasons was treated as valid and not discriminatory merely because it reserved discretion to the State. The State was not obliged to accept the highest offer where another offer was considered more suitable or the public financial interest required otherwise, so the Article 14 challenge failed. The appellant's lease could not be cancelled on the basis of a later statement by the Government alone, because no independent cogent ground for annulment was shown and the appellant was the directly affected party. The acceptance of the revised offer was therefore left undisturbed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 09 Jan 1974 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187934