https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194197 A writ petition was held maintainable under Article 226(2) because part of the cause of action arose within the Madras High Court's jurisdiction, as the impugned direction had operative effect on the petitioner's business interests in Chennai. On merits, the Court upheld the policy excluding the petitioner from bidding for the second container terminal, since the licence agreement was expressly subject to change in law and policy directives, and the Government's decision under the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 was aimed at preventing private monopoly and promoting competition. As the policy itself was not challenged as arbitrary or illegal, judicial review was declined and the tender exclusion was sustained. en-us Mon, 13 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 31 Aug 2017 18:38:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194197 A writ petition was held maintainable under Article 226(2) because part of the cause of action arose within the Madras High Court's jurisdiction, as the impugned direction had operative effect on the petitioner's business interests in Chennai. On merits, the Court upheld the policy excluding the petitioner from bidding for the second container terminal, since the licence agreement was expressly subject to change in law and policy directives, and the Government's decision under the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 was aimed at preventing private monopoly and promoting competition. As the policy itself was not challenged as arbitrary or illegal, judicial review was declined and the tender exclusion was sustained. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 13 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194197